beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff:
A. As to KRW 64,537,161 and KRW 4,488,128 among Defendant A, Defendant A shall have the effect on December 23, 2016, and KRW 59,224.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff’s claim for reimbursement against Defendant A and Defendant B 1) entered into a credit guarantee agreement with Defendant A on August 9, 2013 with a guarantee period of August 8, 2018 and KRW 10,000 with a guarantee limit of KRW 10,00,00 (hereinafter “first guarantee agreement”).
(B) The guarantee period of May 18, 2015 is guaranteed by the credit guarantee agreement of KRW 58,500,000 (hereinafter “second guarantee agreement”) and the guarantee limit of KRW 58,50,00.
Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant B”)
(2) Defendant A jointly and severally guaranteed the Plaintiff’s indemnity obligation under Defendant A’s second guarantee agreement. (2) Defendant A received a guarantee under the first guarantee agreement from D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D Bank”) as security and a guarantee under the second guarantee agreement from E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E Bank”) as security.
3) On November 9, 2016, Defendant A caused a credit guarantee accident that would lose the benefit due to delay in the principal and interest of the above loan. Accordingly, on December 23, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 4,569,318 to D Bank, and KRW 59,224,873 to E Bank on April 20, 2017, respectively. The Plaintiff recovered KRW 823,224 out of the amount of subrogated payment to D Bank, and paid KRW 823,224 out of the amount of subrogated payment. The Plaintiff spent KRW 823,224 out of the amount of subrogated payment. The amount of delayed payment due to the second guarantee contract was KRW 126 per annum. Meanwhile, the agreed damages determined by the Plaintiff is 12% per annum between Defendant A and Defendant C, on the other hand, the contract between Defendant A and the instant real estate, and the maximum amount of maximum amount of debt set up under the “mortgage-mortgage contract” as to the instant case.
(C) On July 25, 2016, the establishment of a new mortgage was completed. Defendant A’s property status was in excess of his/her obligation at the time of entering into the instant mortgage contract, and there was no particular property other than the instant real estate. (No dispute over the grounds for recognition exists, and there was no specific property other than the instant real estate.