logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2017.08.24 2017가단1845
대여금
Text

1. Defendant (Appointed Party) and Appointed C jointly and severally with the Plaintiff KRW 13,066,919 and the Plaintiff’s aforementioned costs from January 19, 2017.

Reasons

1. Determination as to the claim against the Defendant and the Appointed C

A. Comprehensively taking account of the purport (including the fact that there is no dispute) of the entire pleadings in the statement in Gap evidence Nos. 3 (the same as Eul evidence No. 1) and Eul evidence No. 2 as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff loaned KRW 30,000,000 to the defendant around May 25, 2009 and promised to receive KRW 36,000,000 per month from the defendant until May 25, 201, and agreed to receive KRW 1,50,000 per month from the defendant until May 25, 2011. At the time, the designated person C was recognized to have arranged to guarantee the defendant's above obligation to the plaintiff, and it is reasonable to view that the principal amount was 30,00,000 won, and the interest rate for the above loan was 12% per annum 12,00,000,000 after the 24 months.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, Defendant C and Selection are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff interest or delay damages calculated at the rate of 12% per annum from May 26, 2009 to April 25, 2013 that the Plaintiff seeks from May 2013, 2013, the sum of KRW 14,104,109 and KRW 29,400,000 that the Plaintiff seeks from KRW 44,104,109 and the delay damages calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from January 19, 2017, the day following the last delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case, to the day of full payment.

The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant promised to receive interest calculated at the rate of 2% per month on the total of KRW 6,000,000 from the loan principal of KRW 30,000,000 until May 25, 201, including the interest of KRW 6,000,000 from the loan principal of KRW 36,00,00,00. However, it is difficult to believe that the entry of KRW 1 certificate is as it is, and it is insufficient to recognize the only entry of KRW 2 certificate, and there is no other evidence to prove it.

In addition, the Plaintiff paid to the Plaintiff KRW 1,50,00 per month from April 25, 2013 to May 26, 2015.

arrow