beta
(영문) 광주지방법원 2016.11.08 2016가단522219

구상금

Text

1. The Defendant is jointly and severally with the Plaintiff as to KRW 13,793,120 and KRW 13,792,99 among them, respectively, from November 10, 2015 to August 2016.

Reasons

1. The following facts of recognition may be acknowledged by integrating the purpose of the entire pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 6.

On January 17, 201, according to the credit guarantee agreement with B, the Plaintiff issued a credit guarantee statement that causes 34,000,000 of the guaranteed principal to the suspension point of delivery of the Gwangju Bank, from January 17, 2011 to January 20, 2016.

B. Under the above credit guarantee agreement, if the Plaintiff met the guaranteed obligation, B shall pay the Plaintiff the amount of subrogation and the damages for delay in accordance with the Plaintiff’s interest rate from the date of the subrogation to the date of full payment. The Defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the above obligation against the Plaintiff.

C. A credit guarantee accident occurred after obtaining a loan from the Gwangju Bank as collateral, and the Plaintiff subrogated to the Gwangju Bank for the amount of KRW 14,161,52 on November 10, 2015 ( principal KRW 14,025,000).

The amount of 368,523 won out of the amount of subrogation paid by the Plaintiff is KRW 13,792,99 (including the principal of subrogated payment, KRW 13,792,99) and the delay interest rate is 12% per annum.

2. According to the facts of recognition as above, the defendant is jointly and severally liable with B to pay to the plaintiff the principal of 13,793,120 won and the principal of 13,792,99 won as the date of subrogation from November 10, 2015 to August 4, 2016, the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, which is the date of payment by subrogation, 12% per annum and 15% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.