(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.12.13. 선고 2016가단5116155 판결

The loan agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant (hereinafter referred to as the "loan agreement of this case") was entered into with the loan agreement of 100,000,000 won as stated in the attached loan transaction agreement and borrowed from the defendant, and in the loan case of 2015,000,000 won which the defendant applied against the plaintiff for the payment of principal and interest pursuant to the loan agreement of this case as stated in the attached sheet, the Seoul Central District Court 2015,000,000 won and its 123,132,180 won and its 10,000,000 won among them were delivered to the defendant on June 26, 2015 and the delivery date of the original copy of the payment order, and the payment order of 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment was issued, and there was no dispute between the plaintiff and the parties or there was no dispute among the parties at the time of the objection period and its entire evidence No. 12.

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment as to the plaintiff

As the Plaintiff did not hear any explanation about the damages rate for delay applicable to the loan under the loan agreement between the Defendant and the Defendant at the time of entering into the loan agreement with the Defendant, the loan agreement of this case cannot be applied to the Plaintiff. ② The damages for delay determined by the loan agreement of this case cannot be applied to the Plaintiff. ② The damages rate of maximum of 17% damages for delay determined by the loan agreement of this case is unfairly excessive in light of the current bank interest rate, transaction practices, and general social norms, and thus, the amount of damages for delay should be reduced pursuant to Article 398(2) of the Civil Act, which provides that the amount of damages may be reduced where the scheduled amount of damages for delay is unreasonably excessive. ③ The reasons for which the loan agreement of this case was entered into with the Defendant, was to raise the operating funds of the BMedical Foundation with the Defendant as the president, but the agreement between the Defendant and the Defendant to adjust the Plaintiff’s obligations according to the loan agreement of this case was in progress after the rehabilitation commencement decision was issued, and the execution order was rejected prior to June 26, 2015.

First of all, according to the above argument: (a) the Plaintiff entered into the loan agreement in this case; (b) the loan agreement in this case; (c) the loan amount and period; (d) interest rate and compensation rate for delay; and (c) the method of calculating it; and (d) the Plaintiff approved that the basic terms and conditions of loan transaction apply to loan transactions under the following conditions with the Bank of Korea (hereinafter “Bank”); and (b) I agreed with the following provisions: (c) I clearly received the basic terms and conditions of bank loan transactions and copies of this agreement; and (d) hear and understand the main contents of the agreement. (c) I did not accept the Plaintiff’s allegation that the loan agreement in this case was delivered at the time of application for the loan; and (d) I cannot accept the Plaintiff’s explanation about the loan agreement in this case; and (e) I cannot accept the Plaintiff’s allegation that there was any possibility of excessive delay damages from the loan agreement in this case to the date of application for the loan; and (e) I cannot accept the Plaintiff’s assertion that there was any special evidence as to the loan and delay damages in this case.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges

Judges No. Dan Chang

Attached Form

A person shall be appointed.

참조조문

-민법 제398조 제2항

-소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.12.13 2016가단5116155

-춘천지방법원 원주지원 2017.03.21 2016가단3095

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.11.28 2019나39255 (1)

-서울고등법원 2016.12.22 2014나10962

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.07.18 2016가단5299609