(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.09.25 2019가합569561

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.09.25 2019가합569561

물품대금

Text

The Defendant’s KRW 420,000,000 and its related interest to the Plaintiff are 6% per annum from October 1, 2019 to October 24, 2019.

Reasons

1. There is no dispute between the parties to the determination on the cause of the claim or according to the evidence evidence No. 2, the Plaintiff concluded a joint and several liability agreement with the purport that the Plaintiff will pay the Plaintiff in five installments from May 31, 2019 to September 30, 2019, for the claim for the amount of KRW 449,342,00,00, as of May 10, 2019.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 420,000,000 won for joint and several guarantee and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 6% per annum prescribed by the Civil Act from October 1, 2019 to October 24, 2019, which is the date of service of the copy of the complaint of this case, and 12% per annum prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the date of full payment, unless there are special circumstances.

2. The defendant's defense is easy to execute the execution against the non-party company, which is the primary debtor, and therefore, the defendant asserts that the primary debtor is entitled to first claim and the execution of the property

If a creditor has demanded a surety to discharge an obligation, the surety may prove to the effect that he has sufficient means to perform the obligation, and that it would be easy to execute such obligation, and set up a claim against the principal obligor first and that he will execute the property, unless the surety has jointly and severally assumed an obligation with the principal obligor.

(Article 437 of the Civil Act). Since the defendant can recognize the fact that joint and several surety was made for the obligations of the non-party company which is the principal debtor, the defendant's peremptory defense and search are without merit

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.

참조조문

-민법

-민법 제437조

-소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법

유사 판례

-서울서부지방법원 2017.11.24 2017가단7548

-서울서부지방법원 2020.01.31 2019가단267603

-수원지방법원안산지원 2017.10.25 2017가단9114

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.06.27 2017가단23378