(영문) 광주지방법원 2017.01.24 2015가단29096

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) 광주지방법원 2017.01.24 2015가단29096

대여금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff determined on June 20, 2000 won on June 20, 2001 and on June 21, 2001, a total of KRW 150 million on June 21, 2001, as interest rate of KRW 150,000,000,000 to the Defendant, 2% per month (the subsequent change to 1%) and lent to the Defendant.

(hereinafter “instant loan” or “the instant loan”). B.

On October 5, 2010, the Plaintiff: (a) between the Defendant and C, the amount of interest up to September 30, 2010 regarding the instant loan is set at KRW 50 million; and (b) as the Defendant did not have the ability to repay due to cancer, C shall be paid on behalf of the Defendant on the ground of the Defendant; and (c) as if D and other canal cards are sold in lots, the Plaintiff drafted a written confirmation (Evidence 1, hereinafter “instant confirmation”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 3 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. As to the plaintiff's assertion that the principal and interest of the loan of this case were to be paid to the defendant in the amount of KRW 200 million and damages for delay as to KRW 150 million among them, the defendant asserts that C has exempted the plaintiff from the obligation of the loan of this case, and the plaintiff also consented to this, the defendant does not bear the obligation of the loan of this case against the plaintiff.

The Plaintiff asserts that C’s repayment of the instant loan in lieu of the instant loan is a conditional overlapping assumption of obligation.

B. One exemption from the obligation of the instant loan is a contract with the purpose of maintaining the identity of the obligation and transferring it from the former debtor to a third party to the transferee who is a third party. The underwriter, due to the assumption of the obligation, assumes the same obligation as the former debtor by replacing the former debtor with the former debtor and entering into a new debt relationship with the former debtor and at the same time, is exempt from the former debtor by withdrawing from the debt relationship.

In order to have the effect of assumption of an obligation by discharge, the obligee.

유사 판례

-서울남부지방법원 2017.12.22 2017가단244461

-대구지방법원 2020.06.24 2019나321052

-대전고등법원(청주) 2016.06.28 2015나121

-대법원 1999. 7. 9. 선고 99다12376 판결

-대법원 2019.02.14 2017다274703