(영문) 창원지방법원 2017.04.13 2016가단3471

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) 창원지방법원 2017.04.13 2016가단3471

대여금

Text

1. The defendant's KRW 5,00,000 and its amount shall be 5% per annum from October 22, 2005 to February 8, 2006 to the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff filed a civil lawsuit against the defendant for the payment of a loan. On February 8, 2006, the court of the first instance rendered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff that "the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 5,00,000 won with 5% per annum from October 22, 2005 to February 8, 2006, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment" (the original district court 2005Da2186, hereinafter "previous judgment"), and the above judgment became final and conclusive on March 3, 2006.

B. On February 19, 2016, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit in order to extend the extinctive prescription period of a claim based on the previous judgment.

C. Although the Defendant filed a subsequent appeal against the previous judgment, the appellate court rendered a ruling that the Defendant dismissed the Defendant’s subsequent appeal on February 7, 2017 (No. 2016Na5096). Accordingly, the Defendant’s appeal is pending in the final appeal.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 7, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the facts of Finin prior to the determination on the cause of the claim, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 55,00,000 as well as damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum from October 22, 2005 to February 8, 2006 and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment. The Defendant has the benefit of protecting the right in the lawsuit of this case filed for the purpose of the extension of prescription after the completion of the extinctive prescription after the previous judgment became final and conclusive.

B. On the part of the defendant's argument, the defendant did not borrow the money stated in the purport of the claim from the plaintiff, but only prepared a loan certificate with the detention of the defendant, and thus the loan agreement based on the loan certificate is null and void, so the plaintiff's claim cannot be complied with.

When there has been a final judgment, the final judgment shall be the same as the fact-finding court.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.04.27 2016가단5238543

-창원지방법원 2017.05.18 2017가단103088

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.06.21 2015가단5394880

-부산지방법원 2017.04.18 2016가단65274

-창원지방법원 2017.06.29 2017가단5900