(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.05.14 2014나32714

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) 수원지방법원 2015.05.14 2014나32714

차용금

Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The facts that the Plaintiff lent KRW 5,00,000,00 to the Defendant on October 9, 2002, interest rate of KRW 2% (hereinafter “the instant loan”) do not conflict between the parties (the Defendant was led to the confession in the first instance court, but the confession was revoked at the trial, and there is no evidence supporting that the confession was contrary to the truth and due to mistake, and thus, the revocation of the confession is null and void). The Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the principal and interest of the loan, barring any special circumstances.

2. The defendant's defense of extinctive prescription is proved to be extinguished by extinctive prescription, even if the plaintiff's domestic obligation to return the loan against the defendant is recognized.

However, as alleged by the Plaintiff, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the period of repayment was agreed around October 2004 at the time of the instant loan, and as such, the loan claim in this case, for which the period of repayment has not been fixed, shall be extinguished by the extinctive prescription from the time of its establishment. It is evident in the record that the lawsuit in this case was filed on October 10, 2010 after the lapse of 10 years from October 9, 2002, the above loan claim in this case was extinguished by the extinctive prescription prior to the filing of the lawsuit in this case.

As such, the defendant's above defense is justified.

As to this, the plaintiff re-appeals that the defendant had suspended the prescription by recognizing the existence of the loan claim of this case, so it is difficult to view that the defendant approved the loan debt of this case only with the result of the plaintiff's personal examination of the first instance court, and there is no objective evidence to acknowledge it differently, and therefore the plaintiff's re-claim

(3) The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as there is no reason to do so, and the judgment of the court of first instance is not affected by the conclusion of April 18, 2003.

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원 2016.11.10 2016나6263

-대전지방법원 2018.07.04 2018나1801

-창원지방법원 2014.11.28 2014가단13658

-창원지방법원 2015.12.09 2014나13703 (1)

-서울남부지방법원 2019.05.24 2018나2580