logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2021.01.28 2020가합803
대여금
Text

The defendant's 29,973,833 Won and 220,000 won among the plaintiff's 229,973,833 shall be annual from June 13, 2020 to July 1, 2020.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On April 10, 2017, between C and C, the Defendant entered into an obligatory lease agreement between C, the lessee, the former lease deposit of KRW 276,00,000, and the former lease period of KRW 276,000 with respect to the lessor, the lessee, and the former lease of KRW 276,00,00 with respect to the third floor F of the building E (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. On April 20, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement with the Defendant for a loan transaction of KRW 220,000 with respect to the instant lease agreement, and on May 12, 2017, the Defendant borrowed KRW 220,000 from the Plaintiff as of June 11, 2019 (hereinafter “the instant loan”).

Since then, the repayment period of the instant loan extended on August 9, 2019, however, the Defendant delayed to repay the principal and interest of the instant loan, and the instant loan remains in total of KRW 220,000,000 and interest KRW 9,973,833 as indicated in the table below as of June 12, 2020.

220,00,000 won in total, 220,000,00 won in arrears on September 27, 2019, 229,973,833 won 6.4% (15%) 229,973,833 won in total, 220,000 won in total, 220,000 won in arrears on September 27, 2019, without dispute over the ground for recognition / evidence No. 1-2, 5, 10, 200 won in total, and 1,29,973,833

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. According to the facts found in the judgment as to the cause of claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff delayed damages calculated from June 13, 2020 for the amount of KRW 229,973,833 of the principal and interest of the instant loan and KRW 220,000 of the principal, barring any special circumstance.

B. The Defendant’s argument regarding the instant lease contract has not been returned from the current lessor G despite the expiration of the contract term, and the Plaintiff was granted a pledge on the Defendant’s claim to return the deposit under the instant lease contract.

arrow