beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.08.13 2018가단5150555

구상금

Text

1. The Defendants jointly and severally agreed to the Plaintiff KRW 121,00,000 and 6% per annum from October 1, 2013 to October 30, 2013.

Reasons

1. Determination as to the claim against Defendant B, C, and E

(a) Indication of claims: To be as shown in attached Form 1;

(b) As to Defendant B and C of the applicable provisions of Acts: Article 208(3)2 of the Civil Procedure Act (in a case of being deemed as a confession), as to Defendant E: Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act (in a case of service by public notice);

2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant D

A. In full view of each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, the facts constituting the ground for the claim in the annexed sheet can be acknowledged.

According to the above facts, Defendant D is a joint and several surety of the instant guarantee insurance contract and jointly and severally with Defendant B, C, and E, the primary debtor and the remainder of the joint and several surety, and is jointly and severally liable to pay 121,000,000 won to the Plaintiff as 6% per annum from October 1, 2013 to October 30, 2013, the following day after the payment date of insurance money, 9% per annum from the next day to December 29, 2013, 15% per annum from the next day to December 31, 2015, 12% per annum from the next day to June 30, 2018, and 9% per annum from the next day to June 4, 2018, which is the last delivery date of the complaint of this case, and 15% per annum interest rate per annum from the next day to May 31, 2019.

B. On January 18, 2008, when Defendant D, as the principal debtor, had been jointly and severally guaranteed as an auditor of Defendant B, the principal debtor, but thereafter left the office and there was any change in circumstances, Defendant D intends to cancel the above guarantee contract. Defendant D’s claim of this case on the premise that Defendant D bears the responsibility for the guarantee under the above contract is groundless, since it did not set the time limit for guarantee while concluding the above guarantee contract and did not have been notified of the occurrence of an insurance accident.

In full view of the whole purport of the pleadings, Defendant D maintains its status after being reappointed on March 26, 2007 and was recorded as an auditor in the statement Nos. 1-2 and 1-6.