logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원안양지원 2019.12.12 2019가합86
대여금
Text

1. Defendant B:

A. As to KRW 248,890,102 and KRW 225,565,255 among them, from February 23, 2016 to December 12, 2019

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 9, 2012, the Plaintiff received a certificate of borrowing with the seal affixed by the Defendants (hereinafter “certificate of borrowing”) from Defendant B, along with the content that “30,000,000 won was regularly borrowed and the repayment period was from March 9, 2012 to January 9, 2013.”

B. On March 9, 2012, the Plaintiff received a certificate of borrowing with the seal affixed by the Defendants (hereinafter “certificate of borrowing 2”) from Defendant B, stating that “135,00,000 won was regularly borrowed and the repayment period was determined from March 9, 2012 to March 9, 2013.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts finding as to Defendant B’s claim, Defendant B is obligated to pay damages for delay at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from January 10, 2013 to the date following the final maturity of the payment due, as requested by the Plaintiff, as to the loan amount of KRW 300,000,000 based on the loan certificate of this case, and as to the loan amount of KRW 135,00,000 based on the loan certificate of this case from January 10, 2013 to the date following the final maturity of the payment due date as requested by the Plaintiff. (2) Defendant B is obligated to pay damages for delay at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from March 10, 2013 to the date following the final maturity of the payment due date as requested by the Plaintiff. However, Defendant B’s assertion that the loan certificate of this case was made by coercion. Therefore, Defendant B’s assertion that there is no reason to acknowledge otherwise the loan certificate of this case’s loan.

However, as long as the authenticity of the disposal document is recognized, the court shall follow the content of the document unless there is any counter-proof.

arrow