logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2014.11.28 2014가단5109320
대여금
Text

1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for 30,000,000 won and the period from June 10, 2014 to November 28, 2014.

Reasons

1. Determination as to Defendant C

(a) Indication of claims: To be as shown in the reasons for the claims;

B. Although Defendant B’s assertion that Defendant C was not responsible for the Plaintiff through the written response of May 12, 2014, Defendant C is recognized, Defendant B is not the legal representative of Defendant C, and it cannot be deemed as Defendant C’s assertion. Defendant C did not appear on the date of the first and second pleadings of this case without any reply despite the Plaintiff’s receipt of the written complaint on May 13, 2014, and determined as above.

judgment under section 208(3)2 and Article 150(3) of the Civil Procedure Act:

2. There is no particular dispute between the parties as to the facts that Defendant B borrowed 30 million won from the Plaintiff on April 20, 2011.

3. In conclusion, the Defendants jointly and severally filed a claim with the Plaintiff for damages for delay from April 21, 201, which is the date following the loan of 30 million won, from June 10, 2014 to the Plaintiff. However, the loan obligations of this case are obligations not fixed at the due date and the due date comes at the expiration of a considerable period from the due date pursuant to Article 603(2) of the Civil Act. Thus, insofar as there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff notified the Defendant B of the repayment of the loan obligations of this case prior to the filing of the lawsuit of this case (i.e., evidence No. 2-1, the Plaintiff sent a peremptory notice to the Defendant B to the effect that the repayment of the loan obligations of this case was notified on December 10, 2013, but the above content-certified mail was not sent to the Defendant B, and otherwise, the complaint of this case cannot be deemed to have been delivered to the Defendant B by the peremptory notice of this case before the filing of the lawsuit of this case.

arrow