beta
(영문) 부산지방법원 2016.10.06 2016가단38388

대여금

Text

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 97,92,69 and KRW 45,227,428 from March 23, 2016 to the date of full payment.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 21, 2014, the Solo Savings Bank (formerly: Busan Solomon Savings Bank) was declared bankrupt on October 21, 2014, and the Plaintiff was appointed as the bankruptcy trustee.

B. On May 12, 201, the Maritime Savings Bank Co., Ltd. concluded a loan contract with the Co., Ltd. on May 12, 201, by setting the amount of KRW 51,00,000, the period of KRW 48 months, interest rate of KRW 15.9% per annum, interest rate of equal repayment, interest rate of overdue interest of KRW 10% per annum, interest rate of KRW 11% per annum per annum per annum, additional 11% per annum per annum per delay, 3rd and more than 12% per annum per annum, and at the time, C and Defendant

C. The Maritime Savings Bank (hereinafter “instant loan”) paid a loan to the said company. From February 20, 2012, due to the occurrence of arrears, the said company lost the benefit of time.

The present balance is the principal 45,227,428 won, interest 52,765,271 won (based on March 22, 2016).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap 1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant, a joint guarantor, bears the obligation to pay the Plaintiff, a trustee in bankruptcy of the lending financial institution interest and delay damages calculated at the agreed interest rate of 27.9% per annum from March 23, 2016 to the date of full payment of the principal amount of the loan amount of KRW 97,92,69, and the principal amount of KRW 45,227,428.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant's assertion that the defendant applied for individual rehabilitation to the court and the repayment plan was authorized, and the plaintiff also included in the list of creditors of the above case.

However, claims listed in the list of creditors are not loans of this case.

This is because the defendant was unable to properly memory the loan of this case for the elderly at the time, and was not intentional, so the plaintiff cannot respond to the plaintiff's request.

B. According to the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 and 2 and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Defendant’s June 2015.