logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2016.02.04 2014가단47064
대여금
Text

1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for 190,000,000 won and the interest rate of 15% per annum from January 20, 2016 to the date of full payment.

Reasons

1. According to Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 7, and 8 as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff loaned KRW 100 million to D on September 24, 2014 as the due date for payment on May 30, 2005, and if the plaintiff fails to repay it, he/she agreed to pay it in kind as the head of Seodaemun-gu Seoul E apartment 501; Defendant B and C have jointly and severally guaranteed the above KRW 100 million against D's plaintiff; on the other hand, on October 19, 2004, the plaintiff lent KRW 90 million to D on November 30, 2004 after the due date for payment on November 30, 2004; on the other hand, if the plaintiff fails to pay it, the plaintiff is jointly and severally liable to pay the above KRW 90 million to the plaintiff; and on the other hand, Defendant B and C are jointly and severally liable to pay the above KRW 90 million to the plaintiff.

2. The defendants' assertion and judgment are alleged to have satisfied all of the above loans, but there is no evidence to acknowledge this. Thus, the defendants' assertion and judgment are without merit.

The Defendants also asserted that, as G Co., Ltd., the representative of D (hereinafter “G”) is a merchant operating real estate rental business, housing construction business, etc., the above loan claims were borrowed from G for construction expenses, and thus, the five-year commercial statute of limitations is applied. The above loan claims were extinguished after the lapse of five years from November 30, 2004, or from November 30, 2006, when D partially repaid the debt.

It is insufficient to conclude that the Plaintiff’s above loan credit is a commercial credit solely with the statement in the evidence No. 1, and rather, according to the statement No. 6, D can only recognize the fact that the Plaintiff borrowed the above loan from the Plaintiff as an individual qualification. As such, the Plaintiff’s above loan credit shall be subject to the ten-year extinctive prescription as a civil credit. In addition, according to the statement in the evidence No. 9, D repaid the above loan by November 16, 2008.

arrow