logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 경주지원 2018.05.29 2017가단2383
대여금 반환
Text

Defendants jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff KRW 54,500,000 and the remainder thereof:

(a) As regards KRW 45,000,000, July 28, 2015

Reasons

Facts of recognition

The following facts may be acknowledged either as a dispute between the parties or as a whole by taking account of the respective descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 and the purport of all pleadings:

On July 28, 2015, the Plaintiff: (a) lent KRW 45,000,000 to Defendant B for the interest rate of KRW 200,000 per month; and (b) on March 31, 2017.

Defendant C jointly and severally guaranteed Defendant C’s above debt to the Plaintiff.

B. On August 17, 2015, the Plaintiff lent KRW 3,000,000 to Defendant B for interest rateing to KRW 100,000 per month and due date on December 15, 2015.

Defendant C jointly and severally guaranteed Defendant C’s above debt to the Plaintiff.

C. From August 2015 to October 2015, the Plaintiff leased KRW 6,50,000 to Defendant C with interest rate of KRW 500,000 per month and due date of repayment on October 10, 2015.

Defendant B guaranteed Defendant C’s above debt to the Plaintiff.

2. According to the facts of the determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendants jointly and severally have the obligation to serve a copy of the complaint from July 28, 2015 to July 26, 2015 (for Defendant B, December 15, 2017; for Defendant C, September 26, 2017), the rate of 200,000 won per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the day of full payment; for each of 3,00,000 won, the rate of 62,50 won per month from August 17, 2015 to the day of full payment; for each of 45,00,000 won, the agreement shall be calculated with interest rate of 62,500 won per month from August 17, 2015 to the day of full payment; for damages for delay from 6,50,000 won to 10,15.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow