(영문) 창원지방법원마산지원 2016.03.31 2015가단6190

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) 창원지방법원마산지원 2016.03.31 2015가단6190

대여금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement No. 1, No. 1, and No. 2 of the judgment as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff may recognize the fact that the Plaintiff agreed to pay the Defendant a full payment within six months (hereinafter “the instant loan”) and lent the money to the Defendant (hereinafter “the instant loan”).

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to pay the instant loan and damages for delay to the Plaintiff.

The defendant asserts that the defendant merely received the above money from the account under the name of the defendant, and the person who borrowed the real money is the full-time Da of the defendant.

However, the evidence submitted by the defendant alone is insufficient to reverse the above facts, and there is no other counter-proof evidence.

2. The defendant's defense is defense that the above loan claim has expired by prescription.

In this case, the facts that the maturity of the instant loan claim was on January 13, 2003 after six months from the last lending date are known from the above facts. It is evident in the record that the Plaintiff’s lawsuit in this case was filed on June 22, 2015 after the lapse of ten years from the lawsuit in this case. Thus, the instant loan claim in this case had already expired prior to the lawsuit in this case.

Therefore, the defendant's defense is justified.

3. Judgment on the plaintiff's second defense

A. The plaintiff asserts that the extinctive prescription of this case was interrupted for the following reasons.

First, on May 1, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking the payment of the instant loan claim against the Defendant on May 1, 2012, and the statute of limitations was suspended upon a judicial claim.

Second, since the Defendant paid 1 million won interest on the instant loan claims to the Plaintiff on August 10, 2005, the statute of limitations was interrupted on the relevant day.

Third, on August 6, 2013, the Defendant expressed to D the Plaintiff’s agent the intent to approve the debt of this case, so the statute of limitations has been interrupted due to the approval of the debt.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.06.11 2014가단257477

-의정부지방법원 2016.01.15 2015나7313

-의정부지방법원 2016.11.04 2015가단119628

-서울고등법원 2015.01.28 2014나30331

-수원지방법원 2017.05.12 2016나11247