(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.04.05 2017가단70244

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.04.05 2017가단70244

대여금

Text

1. The defendant shall pay 4,00,000 won to the plaintiff and 15% per annum from August 31, 2007 to the day of full payment.

Reasons

1. In full view of Gap evidence No. 1 and Eul evidence No. 1 as to the cause of the claim and the purport of the whole pleadings, the plaintiff shall compensate the defendant and D (the payment order became final and conclusive on July 26, 2007) for the amount equal to 44,00,000 won for the final settlement of accounts, and the payment date on August 30, 2007, when the defendant and D (the payment order was final and conclusive on July 26, 2007) as to the 7th floor No. 712 (hereinafter "the building of this case") of the Gangnam-gu Seoul building, Gangnam-gu. The plaintiff shall pay the interest in arrears at the rate of 5% per month, and shall be charged with all the public and criminal responsibilities related thereto. The defendant, joint guarantor: The defendant and D's share transfer registration statement (hereinafter "the payment note of this case") was made against the defendant on July 10, 2007.

According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the above final settlement amount of KRW 44,00,000 and the overdue interest calculated by the ratio of 15% per annum from August 31, 2007, which is the day following the above payment date, to the plaintiff pursuant to the agreement set forth in the letter of payment in this case, unless there are special circumstances.

In regard to this, the defendant alleged that the ownership of the building of this case was transferred to E at the request of D only one month after the transfer of ownership was made to D, and that all monetary issues were dealt with by D and the plaintiff. Thus, according to the above Eul evidence No. 1, the fact that the ownership transfer registration was completed on October 31, 2007 to E on the building of this case can be recognized, but there is no evidence to support that the defendant did not deal with monetary issues related to the letter of payment of this case between D and the plaintiff. Thus, the above argument by the defendant is without merit.

2. If so, the plaintiff's claim.

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2015.06.12 2012나6587

-제주지방법원 2016.08.23 2016가단51841

-부산지방법원서부지원 2019.01.11 2018가단7984

-전주지방법원 2017.01.18 2016가단655

-수원지방법원안양지원 2015.11.27 2015가단4991