beta
(영문) 부산지방법원 2015.11.24 2015가단42359

대여금등

Text

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 22,913,782 and KRW 21,307,582 among them, per annum from March 5, 2015 to the day of full payment.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. B (a) purchased dump truck (hereinafter “instant truck”) under its own name, and obtained dump truck (hereinafter “the instant truck”) from the Plaintiff, with a loan amounting to KRW 90 million on October 17, 2013, with a loan period from October 17, 2013 to October 14, 2017, with a rate of interest rate of KRW 14.9% per annum, delay compensation rate of KRW 26.9% per annum, and the Defendant established a right to collateral security in the future for the instant truck, and the Defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the said loan to the Plaintiff.

B. B did not pay the principal and interest of the instant loan, thereby losing a benefit of time. As of March 4, 2015, the balance of the principal and interest of the instant loan is KRW 21,307,582, and an attempted interest is KRW 1,606,200.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant, a joint and several surety, is obligated to pay the Plaintiff a loan of KRW 22,913,782 and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 26.9% per annum, which is the agreed damages for delay, from March 5, 2015 to the date of full payment.

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Plaintiff asserts that, without any notification, the Defendant should be held liable as a guarantor to the extent that the Defendant suffered losses, such as disposing of the instant truck by public sale without any notification to the Defendant, who is the actual owner of the instant truck.

Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the evidence evidence Nos. 5 through 14, the Plaintiff visited the Defendant on May 12, 2014 with respect to the delinquency in payment of the instant loan, but did not call due to the suspension of receipt. After completing delivery execution on June 24, 2014 according to the order to deliver the instant truck, the Plaintiff tried to sell the instant truck, which is a security, to the general public, but at the engine room.