logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 울산지방법원 2019.01.30 2018가단51111
대여금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. On May 2, 2016, May 3, 2016, May 3, 2016, and February 27, 2017, the Plaintiff lent KRW 200,000,00 to the Defendant in sequential order on February 27, 2017, the interest shall be paid KRW 2,50,000 on the fifth day of each month, and when the Defendant sells and sells Ulsan-Gun C (hereinafter “instant building”) in Ulsan Metropolitan City, Ulsan Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant loan agreement”), the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to immediately repay the loan (hereinafter “instant loan agreement”), and on March 10, 2017, the Plaintiff and the Defendant prepared a certificate of borrowing the above content and received an authentication thereon on the same day.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1]

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserted the termination of the instant lease due to nonperformance. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant paid interest from March 10, 2017 to July 5, 2017, but did not pay interest of KRW 2,500,00 each month from August 5, 2017 to January 2018 at the time of the instant lawsuit. Thus, the Defendant’s termination of the instant lease agreement by serving a duplicate of the instant complaint on the ground of the Defendant’s nonperformance of obligation. Thus, the Defendant asserted that the Defendant is liable to refund KRW 200,000,000, which is the leased principal, even if the Plaintiff did not pay on the date the Plaintiff promised to pay interest during the said period, barring any special circumstance, it cannot be concluded that the instant lease agreement can be terminated solely on the ground that the Defendant could seek payment of the interest due to the expiration of the period other than the leased principal of the instant case. Thus, the Plaintiff’s aforementioned assertion is no longer reasonable.

B. The Plaintiff, claiming the maturity of the instant loan agreement, can be deemed the term of maturity of the instant loan agreement to be an indefinite term. However, in cases where an uncertain fact was determined to be the due date, not only the occurrence of such fact but also the occurrence of such fact becomes impossible.

arrow