logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.04.10 2018나11397
대여금
Text

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. The total cost of the lawsuit is the intervenor who subscribed for the lawsuit.

Reasons

1. We examine the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit ex officio.

(a) The following facts are apparent in the record:

1) D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”)

(1) On August 27, 1997, the Korea Development Bank loaned KRW 9,00,000 to the Defendant (hereinafter “the Korea Development Bank”). The Defendant filed a lawsuit claiming that D received the above loan claims, and the Seoul Central District Court 2009 Ghana 14181245, alleging that D received the above loan claims, the service of the Defendant was made by public notice. On November 5, 2009, “The Defendant filed an appeal against D regarding KRW 10,236,882 and its KRW 3,474,373 from June 19, 208 to November 4, 2009, and the period from the next day to the day of full payment was 18.5% per annum until November 2009 to the day of full payment, and the Defendant’s spouse claimed that the Defendant’s claim for the aforementioned loan was terminated by the extinctive prescription period of KRW 200 per annum from the Defendant’s spouse.”

3) On May 18, 2018, the Defendant filed an application for participation in the lawsuit with the Plaintiff that the Intervenor acquired the instant loan claim from the Plaintiff and participated in the lawsuit. On June 5, 2018, the Plaintiff withdrawn from the lawsuit of this case. 4) The Plaintiff’s acquisition intervenor filed a suit with the Seoul Central District Court on February 6, 2004 (hereinafter “Seoul Central District Court Decision 2003Da38766 decided on June 5, 2018 on the ground of the claim for the instant loan claim, and the Defendant and F agreed jointly and severally with D on February 6, 2004, “The Defendant and F paid 6,83,064 won and 3,474,373 won, which were calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from June 24, 2003 to the date of full payment,” and the judgment became final and conclusive as to the said claim as to the statute of limitations expired.

5. This.

arrow