logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2018.05.03 2017나2067668
대여금
Text

1. The part against Defendant B among the judgment of the first instance is revoked.

2. The court may make the selective claims added by the plaintiff in this court.

Reasons

Basic Facts

The court's explanation on this part is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus cites this part in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

The court's explanation on this part of the judgment of the court concerning the argument and the main claim is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is citing it in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of

In the first instance judgment on the conjunctive claim against Defendant B, the Plaintiff asserted only in the cause of the claim without clearly stating the purport of the claim as to this part, and added it to the conjunctive selective claim at the trial.) The Plaintiff’s assertion that Defendant B borrowed KRW 300,000,000 to the Plaintiff and did not comply with it, but did not comply with the Plaintiff’s claim. On March 8, 2013, the Plaintiff prepared the instant loan certificate and had it repaid until March 8, 2013, but did not comply with it.

Therefore, Defendant B shall pay to the Plaintiff the borrowed amount of KRW 300,000,000 and interest thereon KRW 10,000,000, and damages for delay from the day following the delivery of the copy of the instant complaint to the day of full payment.

Judgment

According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of claim, Defendant B is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the interest and delay damages for KRW 300,000,000,000 to the Plaintiff, barring any special circumstance, as it borrowed KRW 300,000 from the Plaintiff on March 8, 2013 at the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum.

As to this, Defendant B asserted that only prepared the instant loan certificate only for the purpose to present it to the Plaintiff’s wife and did not enter into an agreement on interest. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge it, and there is an “15% per annum” on the interest rate of the instant loan certificate, and it is simultaneously with the principal.

arrow