logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원통영지원 2019.11.12 2019가단25911
대여금
Text

1. The Defendants jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff KRW 150,000,000, and as to the Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B Co., Ltd. on November 30, 2017

Reasons

On September 25, 2017, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 150 million to Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant B”) on the date of repayment of principal and interest as of November 30, 2017. At the time, Defendant C guaranteed the above loan obligation against the Plaintiff by Defendant B, the fact that there is no dispute between the parties or that it guarantees the above loan obligation against the Plaintiff is recognized by the respective statements in subparagraphs 1 and 2 of subparagraphs A.

According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendants jointly and severally agreed on the above loan amounting to KRW 150,00,000 and the above loan amount to the Plaintiff, as the Plaintiff seeks, 5% per annum as prescribed by the Civil Act from November 30, 2017 to May 24, 2019, the service date of the original copy of the payment order in this case; 15% per annum as prescribed by the former Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to May 31, 2019; and 15% per annum as prescribed by the former Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings (amended by Presidential Decree No. 29768, May 21, 2019; Presidential Decree No. 29768, Nov. 30, 2017; and 3% per annum as to delay damages calculated from the next day to the delivery date of the application in this case to the delivery date of the copy.

Article 3(1) main sentence of Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings (Presidential Decree No. 29768) was amended on May 21, 2019 and enforced on June 1, 2019, and the part in excess of the Plaintiff’s damages for delay is rejected. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants against the Defendants against this case is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remainder of claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

arrow