logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.06.13 2018가단5186547
대여금
Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 52,523,627 as well as KRW 37,487,50 as the interest rate from May 25, 2018 to the day of full payment.

Reasons

1. On June 11, 2014, the Plaintiff loaned 83,00,000 won to the Defendant by setting the equal installment repayment method of the principal and interest for 48 months and the overdue interest rate for 24% per annum. Nonparty D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) jointly and severally guaranteed the Defendant to lose the Defendant’s benefit of time, and on May 24, 2018, the remainder of the outstanding principal amount of KRW 37,487,50 as of May 24, 2018 plus overdue interest of KRW 11,367,00 and overdue interest of KRW 11,523,627 is recognized by each entry in the evidence A or 3.

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay at the rate of 24% per annum, which is the delay interest rate from May 25, 2018 to the date of full payment, for KRW 52,523,627 and KRW 37,487,50.

B. The defendant, upon the change of the representative director of the non-party company to E, accepted the defendant's loan debt balance of this case by the non-party company. The defendant sold tour buses in the non-party company to the non-party company at KRW 8.67 million from the Daejeon District Court's YFF car auction case, and the plaintiff's non-party company as the principal debtor and did not explain the meaning of the loan without properly explaining it is contrary to the principle of good faith.

However, even if the non-party company assumed the debt of this case, it cannot refuse the repayment on the ground of the assumption of the obligation of the non-party company, unless the plaintiff consented thereto, and the defendant did not have received the dividend in the above auction procedure, and it is difficult to view the other assertion as a justifiable reason to refuse the repayment.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is justified and acceptable.

arrow