logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2020.02.11 2019가단5515
보증채무금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 2, 2011, the Plaintiff leased KRW 100,000,00 to D with interest rate of KRW 30% per annum until April 1, 2012, and E, a spouse of D, guaranteed the above loan obligation.

B. The Plaintiff and D are above on August 31, 2012.

On August 31, 2012, the Defendants and E, who are children of D, have guaranteed the obligation of the borrowed amount of the instant loan.

C. The Plaintiff received dividends of KRW 32,835,717 on April 19, 2018 in the auction procedure for a real estate auction conducted with respect to real estate owned by E, Busan District Court F, Busan District Court.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleading

2. According to the Defendants’ joint and several liability, barring any special circumstance, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the principal amount of KRW 92,164,283 (32,835,717, which the Plaintiff received on April 19, 2018, 32,835,717, which was paid to the Plaintiff as the guarantor of the instant loan obligation, to the remainder of the principal amount after appropriating the principal amount of the instant loan claim, and to pay damages for delay after the maturity date of the agreement.) and the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay damages for delay from September 1, 2012, which is the day after the maturity date of the agreement

3. Judgment on the defendants' assertion

A. The Defendants’ assertion 1) D, the primary debtor for performance, borrowed from the Plaintiff KRW 50,00,000 on July 1, 201, and KRW 100,000,000 on July 14, 2011, and KRW 100,000,000 on aggregate, and E, the joint guarantor, repaid to the Plaintiff the total sum of KRW 63,50,000 from July 1, 201 to February 17, 2012. 2) The Defendants asserted that D, the primary debtor for performance, were the guarantor for the loan of this case against D, and thus, the Plaintiff is obliged to first claim the performance of the obligation against D, the primary debtor.

D, the principal obligor of the extinctive prescription defense, is the merchant of “G and H”.

arrow