beta
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2017.05.18 2016가단247302

양수금

Text

1. The defendant shall pay KRW 120,767,03 to the plaintiff.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3.Paragraph 1.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. B entered into a loan agreement with a new bank around March 31, 2009 to receive KRW 270,8960,000 from the new bank in order to prepare part payments necessary for the purchase of the C apartment in order to perform the construction of the brickd Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “the brickd Construction”), and the Defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the principal and interest obligation of the new bank B.

B. A new bank, with the consent of B, paid an intermediate payment of KRW 277,8960,000 to the brick construction instead of B in lieu of the payment of the loan.

C. B, from March 1, 2012, lost the benefit of time due to delay in payment of interest on the loan.

On December 24, 2013, the new bank transferred the principal and interest of the loan and the claim for damages for delay (hereinafter referred to as the “instant loan claim”) against the new C&C specialized company (hereinafter referred to as the “new C&C specialized company”) to the new C&C specialized company, and on January 22, 2016, the new C&C specialized company transferred the instant loan claim to the Plaintiff and notified each of the above assignment of the credit.

E. Meanwhile, the apartment sales contract was terminated because B did not pay the remainder of the apartment that it intended to purchase, and on January 20, 2015, the new buyer of the apartment in question repaid the principal amount of KRW 278,960,000 among the instant loan claims.

(f) Claims for delayed payment of KRW 278,960,00 of the principal granted by a new bank to B are KRW 120,767,033, in total, KRW 120,767,033,00,000, incurred from December 31, 201 to October 31, 2013, as seen in the design of the calculation sheet of the principal and interest on bonds, as seen in the table of the principal and interest on bonds.

(However, in the attached sheet, the "damage for Delay" was indicated as "interest," but the legal nature of the "damage for Delay" is deemed to be "damage for delay" (the ground for recognition), the entry in the evidence No. 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, the obvious facts in this court, and the purport of the entire argument.