beta
(영문) 대전지방법원 2017.07.18 2017가단7672

대여금

Text

1. The defendant jointly and severally with the non-party corporation B as to KRW 53,079,347 and KRW 30,000,000 among them.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 21, 2009, the Plaintiff lent KRW 200,000 to Nonparty Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co., Ltd.”) as indicated in the following table (hereinafter “instant loan”). At the time of the instant loan, the Defendant, as the representative director of the Nonparty Co., Ltd., entered into a contract of collateral guarantee with the Plaintiff, which covers the maximum guarantee amount of KRW 36,00,000,000.

(hereinafter “instant neighborhood guarantee contract”). Interest rate on the date of repayment on the lending date of the lending date, delay rate, corporate driving loan on April 21, 2009, less than 3.70% of the CD interest rate on April 21, 201: at least 17% per annum: 19% per annum.

B. Since then, the Company failed to pay interest and principal to the Plaintiff, and the instant loan as of December 26, 2016 is principal KRW 30,000,000, interest and delay damages KRW 23,079,347.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the determination as to the cause of the claim, the non-party company is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff a total of KRW 53,079,347 (i.e., KRW 30,000,000, KRW 23,079,347) and damages for delay at the rate of KRW 15% per annum for the Plaintiff from December 27, 2016 to the date of full payment, which is the following day. The Defendant is jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff within the limit of KRW 36,00,000,000, out of the above amount, pursuant to the contract for collateral guarantee in this case.

3. Judgment on the defense

A. First, at the time of the conclusion of the instant contract, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff could not respond to the Plaintiff’s claim because it merely lent the name to C upon the request of Nonparty Company C, the actual management owner of the nonparty company.

However, as long as the defendant directly signed and sealed the contract of this case, the validity of the contract of this case cannot be denied, and the plaintiff's defense constitutes a false declaration of intention or a false declaration of conspiracy and thus invalid.