logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2018.09.20 2018가합510
대여금
Text

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 854,00,000 as well as KRW 500,000 among them, from March 13, 2018 to the date of full payment.

Reasons

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. On May 30, 2008, the Plaintiff lent KRW 600 million to the Defendant 1.5% of interest per annum (18%) on May 30, 2008, monthly interest payment period (30% per annum), and the due date for repayment determined within one month of the Plaintiff’s request. 2) The Plaintiff received KRW 100,000 out of the principal amount from the Defendant around 2010.

3) The Defendant did not pay interest on October 2013 [i.e., KRW 7.5 million per month (= KRW 500 million x 1.5%) from KRW 7 million on March 31, 2015, and the same year.

5. 13.6 million won, and the same year.

6. 9.6 million won, and the same year;

7.7.6 million won, and the same year;

8. 17.3 million won, and the same year.

9.9.5 million won, and on November 20, 201, 200 million won (a total of at least 36 million won) were paid respectively as interest.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts that there is no dispute or a person, entries in Gap evidence 1 to 5 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above facts finding, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the interest or delay damages on the principal amount of KRW 854 million [the principal amount of KRW 50 million (= KRW 600 million - KRW 100 million) interest on KRW 350 million [the interest amount of KRW 390 million from October 2013 to January 2018 = KRW 390 million (=the remaining amount after deducting KRW 36 million from the interest amount of KRW 7.5 million x 52 months)] and the interest or delay damages on the principal amount of KRW 50 million.

() Upon the dissolution of the non-party company of the money borrowed from the plaintiff, the defendant, at the time of the non-party company's dissolution, agreed to succeed to the debt of the loan and the certificate of the loan (No. 1-1 of the loan) of this case was not reflected in the loan certificate of this case. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the non-party company's partial repayment of the loan amount. Thus, the defense is without merit.

3. Conclusion, the defendant.

arrow