logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.12.27 2016가단5220108
양수금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The facts in the separate sheet of claim alleged by the Plaintiff as the cause of the claim in this case are either not disputed between the parties, or acknowledged by considering the whole purport of the pleadings as a whole in each statement in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including a serial number).

According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the total amount of KRW 120,762,177 of the balance of each of the loans of this case and delay damages for the principal amount of KRW 30,761,142, barring any special circumstances.

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. The defendant defense that the claim of each of the loans of this case that the plaintiff acquired has ceased to exist due to the completion of prescription.

In full view of the aforementioned evidence, the following facts are acknowledged: (a) the Defendant was granted a loan of KRW 120,00,000 from the Jincheon Livestock Cooperatives on October 10, 1997 (18%) interest rate of KRW 13.5% per annum (18% per annum) and October 10, 1998 on the expiration date of the lending period; (b) the Defendant was granted a loan of KRW 10,000,000 per annum from the Jincheon Livestock Cooperatives on July 24, 1997 (18% per annum); and (c) the Defendant was granted a loan of KRW 13.5% per annum (18% per annum); and (d) on July 22, 2000, upon delegation by the Plaintiff on June 28, 2013.

According to the above facts, the extinctive prescription of each of the loans of this case that the Plaintiff acquired shall run from the day following the due date for each of the above loans ( October 10, 1998 or July 22, 2000). Since the fact that the Plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case on August 5, 2016, which has much more than ten years since it is obvious that the Plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case on August 5, 2016, it is reasonable to view that the extinctive prescription has expired since

B. As to this, the Plaintiff’s final transaction date related to each of the instant loans is August 29, 2011, and thus, the extinctive prescription has been interrupted at that time and runs again.

arrow