beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.12.13 2017가단5101983

대여금

Text

1. The Defendants are jointly and severally and severally liable to the Plaintiff for KRW 4,958,314,601 and KRW 2,459,663,146.

Reasons

1. The allegations and judgment of the parties

(a)as shown in the reasons for the attachment of the claim;

(However, the 'creditor' and the 'debtor' are deemed to be the 'Defendant'. And the plaintiff withdraws the claim against the 761,269 won agreed upon among the total amount of 2,499,412,724 won including the accrued interest, etc. / [the grounds for recognition] part of the dispute, the fact that there is no part of the dispute, the entries in Gap evidence 1 through 6 and the purport of the whole pleadings.

B. The Defendants’ assertion 1) Defendant AA land readjustment project association (hereinafter “Defendant A land readjustment project association”) asserts that: (a) Defendant B and Nonparty C’s resolution of the 44th board of representatives of the Defendant Union is null and void, as Defendant B and Nonparty C deception the representatives to make an erroneous decision; (b) the instant loan agreement has no validity; and (c) the interest claim amounting to KRW 210,852,52,526 has expired after the lapse of the three-year statute of limitations.

B) However, it is insufficient to recognize that the entries in the evidence Nos. 1 through 7 in Eul alone are invalid by the resolution of the 44th board of representatives of the defendant union, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the loan agreement of this case is null and void. ② The period of extinctive prescription is five years for all damages for delay, and the claim that the extinctive prescription has expired since the instant payment order was filed on July 10, 2017, before the lapse of five years from August 11, 2012, which was before the first damages for delay occurred. The judgment on the defendant B's assertion is not acceptable. 2) The judgment as to the defendant B's claim is not acceptable. Since the plaintiff's security offered by the association and the defendant, the representative of the association, is sufficient, and it is sufficient to provide the plaintiff with the security offered by the association, and it is a formal joint and several surety, and since the trust of normal security was a defect in the liquidation money collected by the association members, which is a transferred security.