logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2016.12.08 2016가단8513
할부금
Text

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 28,057,078 and KRW 25,93,692 among them, per annum from April 7, 2016 to the day of full payment.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 17, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a loan agreement with Nonparty B, with the content that the loan principal is KRW 29,00,000,000, the loan term is 48 months, the agreement rate is 14.9% per annum, the rate of delay damages is 26.9% per annum, and the interest rate is 26.9% per annum, and the second day of each month.

(hereinafter “instant loan agreement”). B.

B From December 3, 2015, starting with the repayment obligation of the instant loan from December 3, 2015, B had incurred the principal and interest obligation of KRW 25,93,692 as of April 6, 2016, plus KRW 28,057,07,078 as of April 6, 2016.

C. However, the actual owner of a motor vehicle under the loan agreement of this case was the defendant, and the defendant actually paid the obligation under the loan agreement of this case.

Accordingly, on February 5, 2016, the Plaintiff agreed with the Defendant to pay all the principal and interest of the loan under the instant loan agreement, but did not pay the agreed amount on the date of repayment.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant reimbursement agreement”). [Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, each entry in Gap’s 1 through 6 (including the serial number), and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. According to the facts of determination, the Defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 26.9% per annum from April 7, 2016 to the date of full payment, as to the principal and interest of loan 28,057,078 won and the principal of loan 25,93,692 won, incurred to B pursuant to the instant repayment agreement based on the instant loan agreement.

Although the defendant asserts that this case's rejection of payment is forced to take place by the plaintiff's coercion, there is no evidence to acknowledge this.

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

arrow