(영문) 대구지방법원 2016.01.29 2015가단4235

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) 대구지방법원 2016.01.29 2015가단4235

대여금

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 25,00,000 and the Plaintiff’s 12% per annum from July 7, 2010 to March 28, 2015, and the following.

Reasons

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The facts of recognition (i) As of July 7, 2010, the Plaintiff’s credit amount against the Defendant was KRW 25,000,000, by paying the insurance premium under the insurance contract to which the Defendant was a party on behalf of the Defendant, and lending KRW 3,000 to the Defendant.

B. On July 7, 2010, the Defendant agreed to provide the Plaintiff with the above KRW 25,000,000 until July 7, 2013, and to pay interest calculated by 12% (1%) per annum, and written a loan certificate in attached Form (A evidence 1; hereinafter “the loan certificate in this case”).

Fidelity, however, the Defendant did not pay to the Plaintiff the principal and interest of KRW 25,000,000.

[Ground of recognition] No dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the above KRW 25,00,000 as well as the interest or delay damages calculated at the rate of 12% per annum from July 7, 2010 to March 28, 2015, which is the delivery date of the complaint, from the following day to September 30, 2015, and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings before Amendment, etc., and the interest or delay damages calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The defendant's assertion argues that the amount actually borrowed by the defendant is limited to KRW 3,00,000,000, and that the plaintiff's certificate of loan of this case was prepared by the plaintiff's intimidation, and thus, the plaintiff's claim cannot be complied with.

However, there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant prepared the instant loan certificate by intimidation by the Plaintiff, and as seen earlier, as long as the Defendant agreed to pay the said KRW 25,000,000 to the Plaintiff as seen earlier, and written the instant loan certificate, the Defendant’s above assertion against this is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

참조조문

-소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법

유사 판례

-서울서부지방법원 2016.02.04 2015가단213035

-대전지방법원천안지원 2015.01.15 2014가단106249

-서울북부지방법원 2017.04.13 2016가단24939

-전주지방법원 2014.12.16 2014가단7294

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.07.23 2014가단191409