(영문) 부산지방법원 2016.04.05 2015가단82425

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) 부산지방법원 2016.04.05 2015가단82425

대여금

Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 25,374,97 as well as KRW 25,00,000 among them, from October 12, 2015 to the day of full payment.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 12, 2014, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 25,000,000 to the Defendant on June 12, 2014, and set the maturity on June 12, 2016 as the Plaintiff’s applicable interest rate, respectively.

(hereinafter “instant loan”). (b)

The Defendant lost the benefit of time by delaying the repayment of principal and interest of the instant loan, and on October 11, 2015, the sum of the principal and interest of the instant loan and the early repayment fees (i.e., the principal amount of KRW 25,374,997 (i.e., KRW 166,99,92 interest rate of KRW 149,592 interest rate of KRW 169,592 interest rate of KRW 58,413), and the delay rate of the Plaintiff’s application from the base date to the date of closing the argument in this case is 15% per annum.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination, the Defendant is obligated to pay 25,374,97 won in total of the principal and interest of the instant loan and the early repayment fees, and 25,000,000 won in principal among them, the Defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum, which is the date following the calculation of the last damages for delay, from October 12, 2015 to the date of full payment.

The defendant asserts that the defendant cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim since Busan District Court 2015da33046 applied for individual rehabilitation. However, even if the defendant applied for individual rehabilitation, the lawsuit of this case which had already been filed is not affected by individual rehabilitation procedures until individual rehabilitation claims are confirmed in the relevant procedure, and even if the judgment of this case is rendered, there cannot be any disadvantage in preparing and approving the rehabilitation plan in the future. Thus, the defendant's argument is without merit.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified.

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 2016.05.03 2016가단5326

-부산지방법원 2016.04.05 2015가단75427

-서울남부지방법원 2019.10.15 2019가단243806

-인천지방법원 2016.05.10 2015가단71176

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.07.08 2015가단5033673