(영문) 인천지방법원부천지원 2016.07.15 2016가단1214

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) 인천지방법원부천지원 2016.07.15 2016가단1214

약속어음금

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 30,000,000 and its amount shall be 20% per annum from February 2, 2006 to September 30, 2015 to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The following mediation (hereinafter “instant mediation”) was established on January 18, 2006 in the instant court case No. 2005Kadan13198, which the Plaintiff filed against the Defendant in full view of the statement and purport of the evidence No. 1 of this case, and the facts that the Defendant failed to implement the instant mediation can be acknowledged.

“1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 30,00,000, which shall be paid to the Plaintiff in installments by paying KRW 400,000 per month from February 1, 2006 to 75 months. If the Defendant delays the payment at once, it shall lose the benefit of the installment payment, and shall pay the remainder by adding the delay damages at the rate of KRW 20,00 per annum from the date of delay to the date of full payment. 2. The remainder of the Plaintiff’s claim is waived; 3. The costs of litigation and adjustment shall be borne by each party.

2. According to these facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff who filed the instant lawsuit for the purpose of the extension of prescription amounting to 20% per annum from February 2, 2006 to September 30, 2015, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment, as stipulated in the instant conciliation, to the day following the day of loss of the principal amount of KRW 30,000,000 and the day after September 30, 2015.

3. The defendant's defense is alleged to have expired the statute of limitations. Thus, the defendant's defense of this case is proved to be run from the time when the right can be exercised (Article 166 (1) of the Civil Act). The defendant's defense of this case can be exercised from February 2, 2006, the day following the day when the claim for the conciliation payment of this case was lost the benefit of time, and it is apparent that the plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case on January 18, 2016, before the expiration of 10 years (Article 165 (2) and (1) of the Civil Act) of the statute of limitations of the conciliation payment of this case. Thus, the defendant's defense is without merit.

4. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable.

참조조문

-민법 제165조 제2항

-민법 제166조 제1항

유사 판례

-전주지방법원 2019.06.05 2018가단21892

-서울남부지방법원 2017.07.20 2017가단13698

-서울남부지방법원 2015.08.17 2015가합2257

-의정부지방법원 2018.01.12 2017가단114870

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.07.17 2017가합521589