(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.08.21 2015나10324

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.08.21 2015나10324

대여금

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the evidence Nos. 1 and No. 1, the Plaintiff’s lending of KRW 50 million to the Defendant on September 25, 1998.

2. The defendant's defense of extinctive prescription is alleged to have expired due to the completion of extinctive prescription. Thus, in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement No. 1, it is recognized that the defendant paid KRW 1,00,000 to the plaintiff two times until November 28, 1998, respectively, as interest amounting to the plaintiff by November 28, 1998. Thus, the extinctive prescription period shall begin at this time. Since it is apparent that the lawsuit of this case was filed on March 10, 2014, the ten years after the lapse of the aforesaid ten years, the claim of this case was extinguished by extinctive prescription. The defendant's defense is with merit.

(1) The plaintiff paid interest by June 25, 199 to the defendant. Thus, since the period of prescription is asserted to run from that time, in full view of the overall purport of the arguments as to the statement No. 11, the plaintiff is recognized as having deposited KRW 1,50,000 in the plaintiff's passbook under the name of F, an employee of the company operated by E on June 25, 1999, but it is not sufficient to recognize that the above amount was paid as the interest of the loan claim of this case by the defendant in light of the witness E's partial testimony of the party witness E, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise, the above assertion is without merit).

3. On May 4, 2009, the Plaintiff re-appealed to the effect that the Defendant renounced extinctive prescription benefits by remitting the interest on the instant loan claim amounting to KRW 500,000 (hereinafter “instant claim”) to the Plaintiff on May 4, 2009.

On May 4, 2009, the fact that the defendant remitted the issue amount to the plaintiff's account on May 4, 2009 is no dispute between the parties.

However, the evidence Nos. 2-1 and 2-2 respectively.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.01.14 2014가단50058

-부산지방법원동부지원 2016.05.25 2015가단217494

-의정부지방법원 2016.09.09 2016나1251

-서울남부지방법원 2015.04.30 2014가합8241

-의정부지방법원 2015.04.07 2014가단49043