beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.05.15 2014가단5315903

양수금

Text

1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant A shall complete the payment of KRW 147,076,886 and KRW 44,290,576 among them from November 6, 2014.

Reasons

1. Determination as to claims against Defendant A and C

(a) Indication of claims: To be as shown in the reasons for the claims;

(b) Defendant A: Judgment on deemed confessions (Article 208 (3) 2 of the Civil Procedure Act) and rendered by public notice (Article 208 (3) 2 of the Civil Procedure Act)

2. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B

A. The Plaintiff asserts that Defendant A received a loan of KRW 11,600,000 from Yangyang Card Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Dongyang Card”) on October 30, 1999 under Defendant B’s joint and several sureties, and that Defendant B sought payment of the principal and interest as a performance of joint and several sureties obligation.

Defendant B asserted that Defendant B did not have a joint and several surety on the ground that the loan agreement claimed by the Plaintiff was concluded at the expiration of ten years after the divorce between Defendant B and Defendant A on June 3, 1987.

B. According to the evidence evidence No. 2 and evidence No. 5-3 through 6, and 9, Defendant A received a loan (hereinafter “instant loan”) with an annual interest rate of 26% per annum, interest rate of 29% per annum, interest rate of 29% per annum, and 36 months due to the repayment of the former card price and the principal and interest on small loans with the Dongyang Card on October 30, 1999. ② The Plaintiff received the instant loan from the Dongyang Card and again sent a notice of the transfer of the principal and interest on June 23, 2014 to Defendant A by the content-certified document; ③ The Plaintiff’s annual interest rate of 11,600,000 won and delayed payment damages as of November 5, 2014; and ③ the Plaintiff’s interest rate of 16% per annum and interest rate of 76% per annum, 476% per annum, 796,796 and 79% per annum, etc.

Furthermore, in light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that Defendant B guaranteed the principal and interest obligation of Defendant A with respect to the Dongyang Card at the time of the loan of this case.