logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.11.12 2015가단70059
대여금
Text

1. The defendant shall pay 31,00,000 won to the plaintiff and 30% per annum from August 1, 2013 to the day of complete payment.

Reasons

1. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement No. 1, the Plaintiff and the Defendant drafted, on June 28, 2013, an authentic deed of a monetary loan contract for consumption (hereinafter “instant authentic deed”) with the following content in love law firms:

- Creditor A and obligor B - Article 1: The obligee lent KRW 31,000,000 to the obligor on July 3, 2012, and the obligor borrowed this.

- Article 2: From July 2013 to March 2014, in installments, KRW 3,000,000 shall be paid as of the end of each month, and the remainder of KRW 4,000,000 shall be paid as of April 30, 2014.

-Article 5: If the debtor delays the repayment of principal or interest, damages for delay shall be paid to the creditor at the rate of 30% per annum for the delayed principal.

-Article 6: When the obligor delays the payment of principal, the obligor must, as a matter of course, lose the benefit of time for the obligation of the borrowed amount and immediately repay all the remainder of the obligation, even without any notification or peremptory notice otherwise from the obligee.

2. Determination:

A. In light of the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant: (a) borrowed KRW 31,00,000 from the Plaintiff on July 3, 2012; (b) made installment payments from the last day of July 2013; (c) lost the due date interest; and (d) agreed to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 30% per annum.

However, since the Defendant did not repay the loan to the present time and thereby lost the benefit of time, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 31,000,000 as borrowed and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 30% per annum, which is the rate of delay damages, from August 1, 2013 to the date of full payment.

B. On May 2012, the Defendant merely borrowed KRW 10,000,000 from the Plaintiff and did not borrow KRW 31,000,000. The Defendant asserts that the instant notarial deed was made by force without any choice but by force by threatening the Plaintiff.

However, the notarial deed of this case is by force.

arrow