(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2016.02.16 2015가합105634

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2016.02.16 2015가합105634

양수금

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 1,558,00,000 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from October 6, 2015 to February 16, 2016.

Reasons

1. The following facts can be acknowledged in full view of each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 7 (including branch numbers) and the whole purport of the pleadings.

B on July 16, 2004, 200,000, 4,000, 27 February 27, 2004, 200,000,000 on August 4, 2004, 50,000,000 on August 26, 2004, 30,000 on September 2, 2004, 00,000,000,000 on September 20, 200, 16. 20,000,00,000 on September 16, 2004, 200. 13,00,00,000 on October 25, 204, 200, 130,000, 130,000,000 on May 30, 2004; and

B. B on January 30, 2007, transferred the above loan claim against the Defendant to the Plaintiff, and notified the assignment of the claim on April 16, 2007, and the above notification reached the Defendant at that time.

2. According to the above facts of determination, the defendant is obligated to return the above loan amounting to KRW 1,558,00,000 to the plaintiff who acquired the loan claim from B.

The Plaintiff claimed for the payment of damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the day following the delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment.

However, there is no assertion or evidence as to the fact that B and the defendant set the time for the return of the above loan, and in the case of a loan for consumption with no agreement on the time for return, the lender shall demand the return within a reasonable period pursuant to Article 603 (2) of the Civil Code, and as a result, the borrower shall demand the return of the loan from the time when the lender notified the lender of the return of the loan, and there is no assertion or evidence as to the fact that the plaintiff or B notified the defendant of the return of the above loan before the delivery

However, the Plaintiff is a duplicate of the instant complaint containing the content of seeking the return of the above loan against the Defendant.

참조조문

-민법 제603조 제2항

-소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법

유사 판례

-서울동부지방법원 2016.01.12 2015가합1732

-서울남부지방법원 2016.06.24 2015가합107213

-수원지방법원성남지원 2015.11.25 2014가단219018

-수원지방법원성남지원 2015.11.25 2014가단212949

-광주지방법원목포지원 2016.03.30 2015가단12312