(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.02.07 2016가단153111

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.02.07 2016가단153111

약속어음금

Text

1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B shall pay KRW 60,000,000 as well as 20% per annum from September 16, 2006 to the date of full payment.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 18, 2006, the Plaintiff filed a claim for promissory notes against Defendant B, network D, and E, and received a judgment from the above Seoul Central District Court (hereinafter “instant judgment”) stating that “Defendant B, network D, together with the Plaintiff, shall pay to the Plaintiff 6,000 won and the amount equivalent to 20% per annum from September 16, 2006 to the full payment date” (hereinafter “instant judgment”). The said judgment became final and conclusive on January 3, 2007 with respect to Defendant B and bank D.

B. On December 21, 2016, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit for the extension of the prescription period of the instant judgment claim.

C. Meanwhile, the network D died on May 29, 2014, and his child C succeeded to the property.

[Grounds for recognition] The items of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts finding as to the claims against Defendant B, barring any special circumstance, Defendant B is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from September 16, 2006 to the date of full payment. (A) Defendant B’s assertion as to the claim of this case had already been extinguished, but there is no evidence to support the above Defendant’s assertion. (b) Defendant B asserted that the loans or promissory notes, which form the basis of the judgment of this case, have already been extinguished due to the date of the occurrence of the claim of this case on July 18, 2001. However, there is no evidence to support that the claim was extinguished on July 18, 2001, and the extinctive prescription of this case is ten years after the date of the occurrence of the claim, and there is no evidence to support that the claim was established by the judgment on July 18, 2001, and the lawsuit of this case as above 10 years after the date of the judgment of this case became final and conclusive.

3 The plaintiff's defendant, according to the theory of lawsuit.

유사 판례

-창원지방법원 통영지원 2014. 04. 03. 선고 2013가단9115 판결

-부산지방법원 2016.06.03 2015나12878

-전주지방법원 정읍지원 2017.01.12 2015가단4953

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.08.25 2014가단5270673

-광주지방법원 순천지원 2018.07.05 2017가단3899