beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s loan case against the Plaintiff at Suwon District Court, Suwon-si, 2014, 2013Da38553 decided April 24, 2014.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On April 24, 2014, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking the payment of loans with this Court No. 2013Gada38553, and sentenced that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant the amount of KRW 10 million and the amount calculated at the rate of KRW 20% per annum from January 7, 2014 to the date of full payment,” and the said judgment became final and conclusive on May 16, 2014.
(hereinafter “the final judgment of this case”). (b)
On July 2, 2014, the Defendant received on July 2, 2014 from Suwon District Court 2014TT Co., Ltd. 200, order of seizure and collection, and received from Hyundai Card Co., Ltd. 25,000,000 won on July 28, 201, and the same year.
8. 11. Collecting KRW 1,792,70 from Samsung Card Co., Ltd., and receiving KRW 3,136,800 in the Suwon District Court Decision 2014No. 5533, Sept. 22, 2014.
C. On March 3, 2015, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 100,00,00, respectively, with the gold No. 48 in 2015, as 2,412,530, and gold No. 169, October 27, 2015 at the same court as 2015, and December 24, 2015 at the same court as 196, respectively.
[Ground] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3, Gap evidence 4-1 to 6, Gap evidence 6, 7, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination 1) If an obligor deposits only a part of the amount of debt, but additionally deposits the shortage, it can be deemed that an effective deposit has been made with respect to the entire amount of debt from that time (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da35679, Dec. 27, 1991). As seen in the above basic facts, if the Defendant deposits the amount of debt based on the final judgment of this case, and the money deposited by the Plaintiff is appropriated to the amount of debt based on the final judgment of this case in the order of interest, delay damages, and principal, as stated in the attached repayment statement, as stated in the attached Table, the Plaintiff’s obligation against the Defendant was extinguished. 2)