logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.06.11 2020가단5076056
대여금
Text

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 239,620,518 and KRW 83,104,786 from November 14, 2019 to the day of full payment.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff entered into a credit transaction agreement with the Defendant as follows, and accordingly, loaned each amount.

At that time, the plaintiff and the defendant agreed to apply the interest rate determined by the plaintiff to the interest rate of the above loan and damages for delay if there is a change in the interest rate, and the rate of damages for delay determined by the plaintiff currently being applied is 15% per annum per annum and 15% per annum per annum, and the rate of damages for delay in the second loan is 13.79% per annum.

B. Since then, the Defendant began to pay the above loans, and the remaining principal and interest of the loans as of November 13, 2019 are KRW 239,620,518 in total as follows:

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff delay damages calculated by applying the agreed interest rate of 15% per annum for the agreed interest rate of 239,620,518 won in total and the balance of principal principal of the first loan from November 14, 2019 to the date of full payment, 58,249,191 won in total, and the agreed interest rate of 13.79% per annum for the agreed interest rate of 13.79% per annum from November 14, 2019 to the date of full payment.

B. As to this, the Defendant asserts to the effect that the above claim was declared bankrupt and exempted by the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2015Da3715.

However, since the above declaration of bankruptcy and exemption case are not the defendant but C, it is difficult to view that the effect of adjudication of bankruptcy and immunity in the above case extends to the defendant.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion cannot be accepted.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow