beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.04.02 2015가단5003061

구상금

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 59,317,451 and KRW 9,628,706 among them shall be 15% per annum from October 30, 2012 to November 30, 2012.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On February 9, 2010, the Plaintiff concluded a housing finance credit guarantee agreement with the Defendant for KRW 200 million of the guaranteed principal.

B. Under the Plaintiff’s credit guarantee, the Defendant was loaned KRW 200 million as a general household fund from the bank Kim Jong-yang branch on the same day.

C. On October 29, 2012, the Plaintiff subrogated for KRW 210,286,240,000, total of KRW 10,296,240, and the interest of KRW 10,29,240, to the Bank of Korea, a stock company, in accordance with the said credit guarantee.

The fees that the Plaintiff incurred prior to the performance of the guaranteed obligation are KRW 1,069,150, and the rate of delayed damage to the indemnity claim is 15% per annum until November 30, 2012 and 12% per annum from January 30, 2012 to the date of closing argument in this case.

[Ground of recognition] The items of evidence A1 to A8-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the facts of the determination as to the Plaintiff’s cause of action, the Defendant is obligated to pay the remainder of KRW 9,628,706, delay damages, KRW 48,619,59, and KRW 59,317,451, and KRW 9,628,706, and KRW 15% per annum from October 30, 2012 to November 30, 2012; and KRW 12% per annum from December 1, 2012 to December 8, 2014; and KRW 20% per annum from December 9, 2014 to December 9, 2014.

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant concluded a contract for the sale of the pre-industrial development and the Kimpo-ro apartment, and paid an intermediate payment with loans from the Bank of Korea under the Plaintiff’s credit guarantee, but the contract for sale was terminated on October 2, 2014, the pre-industrial development should be settled by returning the sales price already paid to the Defendant and paying the penalty, etc. However, the Defendant asserts that it is unreasonable to claim the Defendant for reimbursement after completing the development and settlement of the pre-industrial development and the pre-industrial development without excluding the Defendant.

l.p. g., p.