logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.12.04 2019가단5019286
양수금
Text

1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for KRW 138,553,542 as well as KRW 61,535,707 as from December 1, 2018.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. Defendant B, on November 12, 2012, determined 85,000,000 won from D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) at the interest rate of 26.9% per annum; Defendant C, on the same day, guaranteed the said loans to the extent of KRW 110,50,000 for Defendant B’s above loans.

B. On May 2, 2018, Nonparty Company transferred the above principal and interest of loan to the Plaintiff, and notified the Defendants of the fact that the Plaintiff delegated by Nonparty Company transferred the loan to the Defendants.

C. The remainder of a loan obligation as of November 25, 2018 reaches KRW 138,553,542, including principal KRW 61,535,707, etc.

[Reasons for Recognition] Defendant B: Each entry of evidence Nos. 1 through 5, and the purport of the whole pleading as to Defendant C: by service (Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act)

2. According to the facts of the determination as to the cause of the claim, Defendant B is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the principal of KRW 138,553,542 and the principal of KRW 61,535,707 among them at an interest rate of 26.9% per annum from December 1, 2018, the day following the day of service of the original copy of the instant payment order, to the day of full payment. Defendant C is jointly and severally liable with Defendant B to pay the said amount within the limit of KRW 110,50,000, the limited collateral guarantee amount.

3. Defendant B’s assertion that there was no agreement between the non-party company and the non-party company on the installment savings loan. However, according to the aforementioned evidence and the statement of Nos. 8 and 9 and the voice of recorded files, it can be sufficiently recognized that Defendant B entered into the installment savings contract with the non-party company. Thus, the above Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

4. The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is accepted.

arrow