logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2015.04.14 2014가합8132
대여금
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 290,000,000 and the Plaintiff’s portion

A. From June 1, 2012 to March 17, 2015, KRW 100,000.

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff loaned the Defendant a total of KRW 290,000,000 as follows.

1) Interest KRW 100,00,000 on June 2, 2009; interest KRW 2% on June 30, 2009 from June 30, 2009; maturity of KRW 90,000,000 on April 7, 2010; interest KRW 1.5% on April 30, 2010; maturity of KRW 1.25% on December 31, 201; interest KRW 10,000,000 on June 17, 201; and maturity of KRW 1.25% on June 30, 201; and the purport of the entire pleadings and arguments on December 31, 2010

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment that the defendant is obligated to pay interest and delay damages at the rate of 18.8% per annum to the plaintiff on the ground that the defendant's last interest rate of 4,550,000 won should be converted into annual interest rate of 18.8% per annum.

However, there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff agreed with the Defendant as to KRW 90,00,000 for the Defendant on April 7, 2010, as to KRW 1.5% per month as stated in the evidence No. 2, and KRW 100,000,000 from June 17, 2010 as to KRW 1.25% per month as stated in the evidence No. 3, and as to KRW 1.25% per month as to KRW 1,25% per month as stated in the evidence No. 3.

Therefore, with respect to loans of KRW 290,000 and KRW 100,000,00 among the loans extended on June 2, 2009 to the Plaintiff, the Defendant is obligated to pay 18.8% per annum for the Plaintiff within the scope of agreed interest rates from June 1, 2012 to March 17, 2015, loans of KRW 90,000,000 as loans from April 7, 2010 to March 17, 2015, and interest rate of KRW 1.5% from the day after June 1, 2012 to March 17, 2015 as above, and interest rate of KRW 10,000 from June 1, 201 to June 17, 2015 to the day after June 21, 2015, and interest rate of KRW 10,000 as loans from each of the above Special Cases Concerning the Promotion of Legal Proceedings from June 17, 2015, 2015.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is to the extent recognized above.

arrow