(영문) 부산지방법원 2017.11.22 2017나45766

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 부산지방법원 2017.11.22 2017나45766

대여금

Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Defendants exceeding the following payment order shall be revoked, and that part shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. According to the evidence evidence Nos. 1 and 4, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 20,000,000 (hereinafter “the instant loan”) to Defendant B on March 28, 2005 with the maturity of KRW 10,000 on March 28, 2005 and interest rate of KRW 10,000 (hereinafter “the instant loan”). The loan agreement for KRW 20,000,000 on the above loan contains Defendant C’s signature and seal, and the said loan agreement states that “where the repayment date is not observed, the Plaintiff shall keep the D store contract as a security for the failure to comply with the repayment date,” and the provider of the said D store contract can be recognized as the Defendant C.

B. According to the above facts of recognition, it is reasonable to view that Defendant C signed and sealed the above loan agreement in the sense that Defendant C jointly and severally guaranteed the instant loan obligations against the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff KRW 20,000,000 and interest or delay damages thereon.

2. Judgment on the defendants' assertion

A. The Defendant B’s claim by the Defendants expired by the statute of limitations, and Defendant C’s joint and several liability extinguished by the subsidiary nature of the guaranteed obligation.

B. Determination 1) The facts that Defendant B’s repayment period of the instant loan obligation was March 28, 2005 are as seen earlier, and the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against Defendant B on August 8, 2016 after the lapse of 10 years from that date. Thus, barring any special circumstance, Defendant B’s instant loan obligation expired by extinctive prescription, and Defendant C’s joint and several guarantee obligation was extinguished by the subsidiary nature of the guaranteed obligation. 2) As to this, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant loan obligation was modified to the non-fixed obligation.

According to the evidence Nos. 3 and 5, the defendants filed for the payment of the loan of this case with the Busan District Court.

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 2016.09.22 2016가단17572

-의정부지방법원 2016.12.02 2016나55531

-부산지방법원동부지원 2016.10.27 2015가단215610

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.02.06 2016가단137782

-서울동부지방법원 2014.12.19 2014나20983