구상금
1. The Defendant’s annual period from October 14, 2015 to November 11, 2015, as to KRW 42,078,479 and KRW 41,672,979 among the Plaintiff.
Comprehensively taking account of the purport of each statement in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9, the plaintiff entered into a guarantee agreement with the defendant as to loans that the defendant will receive from the Industrial Bank of Korea as of August 18, 201, and the guarantee term of August 18, 2011, and issued a credit guarantee certificate to the defendant under the above guarantee agreement. The above guarantee term has been extended up to August 19, 2015. The defendant's failure to pay the above loans to the Industrial Bank of Korea, and the plaintiff, the credit guarantee holder, paid the amount of KRW 41,672,979 to the Industrial Bank of Korea on October 14, 2015. The defendant paid additional guarantee fees to the plaintiff, KRW 120,550, legal procedure expenses, KRW 284,950, which the defendant paid to the plaintiff. When the plaintiff fulfilled the guarantee obligation at the time of the above guarantee agreement, the defendant agreed to pay damages for delay by the plaintiff to the plaintiff based on the relevant statutes.
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 42,078,479 won, such as subrogated payment (=41,672,979 additional guarantee fees of KRW 120,550 for substitute payment of KRW 284,950 for substitute payment of KRW 120,550 for substitute payment) and, among these, 41,672,979 for substitute payment of KRW 41,67,97 for the period from October 14, 2015 to November 11, 2015, which is the delivery date of the original copy of the payment order of this case, 12% per annum, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum as stipulated by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from
On this issue, the defendant asserts to the effect that the defendant cannot respond to the plaintiff's request since he applied for commencement of individual rehabilitation procedure by Suwon District Court No. 2015da139401. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant was ordered to commence individual rehabilitation procedure, and the fact that the defendant applied for commencement of individual rehabilitation procedure alone does not affect the litigation procedure of this case.