beta
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2016.06.14 2015가단244764

대여금

Text

1. The Defendants are jointly and severally and severally liable to the Plaintiff for KRW 205,230,757 and KRW 197,20,000 among them, from October 22, 2015.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On February 27, 2015, the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) provided a loan (Article 197,20,000 won at an interest rate of 9.8% per annum, overdue interest rate of 24% per annum, and repayment period of 72 months (payment of the principal and interest after three months grace period) to Defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”), and Defendant B provided a joint and several guarantee for the above loan obligations of Defendant Company.

B. At the time of the instant loan, the Defendant Company agreed to lose the benefit of time when certain reasons stipulated in the credit transaction basic terms and conditions have occurred. From July 5, 2015, Defendant Company lost the benefit of time due to delinquency in the payment of the instant loan obligations, and as of October 21, 2015, the remaining details of obligations under the instant loan agreement are as follows.

- Principal: 197,200,000 - Interest: 7,464,082 - Interest for delay: 566,675 - Total amount: 205,230,757 - [Grounds for recognition] - Judgment by service by publication (Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act) - Defendant B: The absence of dispute; the entries in Gap’s evidence 1 through 4; the purport of the whole pleadings;

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff the sum of the principal and interest of the instant loan plus KRW 205,230,757, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 24% per annum from October 22, 2015 to the date of full payment.

3. Determination as to Defendant B’s assertion

A. At the time of the joint and several guarantee contract for the loan obligation of this case asserted by Defendant B, Defendant B was an employee who did not hold the shares of the Defendant Company for one week.

Therefore, the joint and several guarantee contract for the loan of this case is null and void because it is contrary to the abolition of the second financial right prepared by the Financial Services Commission.

B. According to each description of the judgment unit No. 1 (including paper numbers), the Financial Services Commission provides a joint and several surety with respect to corporate loans from July 1, 2013 by the Financial Services Commission.