logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2017.11.02 2016나56318
대여금
Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

Reasons

The plaintiff asserted that the cause of the claim is determined. Since the plaintiff lent KRW 6,000,000 to the defendant on April 13, 2006 as the due date for payment on July 20, 2006, the plaintiff is obligated to pay the above loan and delay damages to the plaintiff.

On June 16, 2008, the Plaintiff agreed to lend KRW 3,600,000 to the Defendant on June 16, 2008, and to repay KRW 3,600,000 per day to the Defendant for the total of KRW 40,000 per 90 per day. However, the Defendant paid KRW 1,640,000 among them and did not repay the remainder.

The sum of the remaining principal of the loan (=3,60,000 won - 1,640,000 won - 1,640,000 won) and the agreed interest calculated at the rate of 25% per annum from September 15, 2008 to July 14, 2014 under the Interest Limitation Act, shall be KRW 6,393,626, since the sum of the agreed interest calculated at the rate of 25% per annum from the following day to August 2, 2016, is KRW 6,393,626, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the money stated in the claim.

According to the judgment of the loan claim as of April 13, 2006, Gap evidence No. 1, the defendant is found to have prepared and issued a cash custody certificate to the plaintiff on April 13, 2006 that "6,00,000 won is kept and repaid until July 20, 2006."

On April 13, 2006, while lending KRW 5,00,000 to the Defendant, the Plaintiff agreed to receive KRW 60,000,000 per day from the Defendant for the total of KRW 60,000 per day. Accordingly, the fact that the Defendant paid KRW 6,00,000 per day to the Defendant does not conflict between the parties, or that the Defendant paid all of KRW 6,00,00 per day is recognized by adding the whole purport of the pleadings to the entries in the evidence Nos. 2 and 2 and 3, respectively. The Plaintiff’s assertion on the different premise is without merit.

On June 16, 2008, the plaintiff lent KRW 3,00,000 to the defendant on June 16, 2008, and the plaintiff agreed to receive KRW 3,60,000,000 per day from the defendant from June 17, 2008 to September 14, 2008.

the facts stated in this paragraph.

arrow