logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.09.23 2016나31724
대여금
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 17, 2001, the Plaintiff (Korea Housing and Commercial Bank Co., Ltd.) extended the term of the instant loan to May 17, 2002 by May 18, 2009, the maturity of the instant loan extended between the Defendant and an automatic passbook loan, the transaction classification, the limit of the loan amount of KRW 9,500,000, and the expiration date of the loan period.

set forth a loan transaction agreement.

(hereinafter “instant loan”). (b)

On October 11, 2008, the Defendant lost the benefit of time exceeding the lending limit of the instant loan.

C. Meanwhile, as of November 17, 2015, the sum of the principal and interest of the instant loan claims as of November 17, 2015 is KRW 13,118,059 (principal KRW 6,609,821 KRW 6,508,238). The overdue interest rate applicable to the instant loan is 15%.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 3 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of recognition, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated by the rate of 15% per annum from November 18, 2015 to the date of full payment, with respect to KRW 13,118,059 and the principal of KRW 6,609,821 among the principal and interest calculated.

3. The defendant's assertion and judgment asserted that the defendant paid all the loans of this case to the bank account held by the plaintiff to the effect that there is no debt due to the loan of this case. However, the evidence submitted by the defendant alone is insufficient to acknowledge the defendant's assertion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the repayment. Rather, the defendant's argument is without merit, in full view of the contents of evidence A and the whole purport of argument as to evidence A and evidence Nos. 4 through 7.

① The Defendant’s loan was incorporated into a special bond on December 29, 2008, which was after the time limit was lost. At that time, the principal of the loan was KRW 9,500,000, and interest KRW 440,983.

(2) The defendant shall account the subscription deposit account number on January 23, 2009.

arrow