(영문) 제주지방법원 2017.10.31 2017가단51367

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) 제주지방법원 2017.10.31 2017가단51367

대여금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the evidence No. 1 of the judgment as to the cause of the claim No. 1, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 32 million and damages for delay.

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense of extinctive prescription

A. Since the defendant's defense that the above loan claim had expired by the statute of limitations, the defendant's defense was examined, and according to the evidence No. 1, it can be acknowledged that the time limit for payment of the above loan claim was December 31, 2006. Since it is apparent in the record that the lawsuit of this case was filed on February 9, 2017 after the lapse of 10 years from the lawsuit of this case, the above loan claim had already expired by the statute of limitations before the lawsuit of this case is filed. Thus, the defendant's defense is justified.

B. On October 15, 2007, the Plaintiff approved the above loan debt by repaying part of the above loan debt by way of remitting the amount of KRW 100,000 from the account in the name of the Plaintiff from the account in the name of the Plaintiff to the account in the name of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff re-claimed that since the instant lawsuit was filed within 10 years thereafter, the extinctive prescription as to the above loan debt has not expired.

In this regard, a debt approval as the cause of interruption of extinctive prescription is established by means of an indication that the debtor who is a party to the interruption of extinctive prescription benefits, is aware of the other party’s rights or obligations to the person who would lose the claim due to the completion of the extinctive prescription period

(2) The Plaintiff’s assertion as to the Plaintiff’s repayment of KRW 100,000 to the Plaintiff on October 15, 2007 is insufficient to acknowledge that the Defendant approved the Defendant’s obligation by voluntarily repaying the Plaintiff as part of the above loan, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this. Thus, the Plaintiff’s re-claim cannot be accepted.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.

참조판례

-대법원 2014. 1. 23. 선고 2013다64793 판결

유사 판례

-서울남부지방법원 2015.09.11 2015가단16297

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.01.29 2017나40084

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.05.28 2018나77113

-의정부지방법원 2015.04.16 2014나6122

-서울서부지방법원 2018.10.24 2018가단5068