logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.03.29 2017나60118
계금
Text

1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff's claim corresponding to the above revocation part.

Reasons

1. Summary of the parties' assertion

A. On September 27, 2016, the Plaintiff: (a) as the Plaintiff’s fraternity owner, paid 8.5 million won per week for each week from September 27, 2016; and (b) deposited 13 times for the first time to December 12, 2016 and paid 10.2 million won in total (=8.5 million won x 12 times). Since the Defendant paid 1.5 million won among the principal (i.e., 10 million won interest per million won) and 1.5 million won for each week, the Defendant is obligated to pay 1.5 million won for delay damages to the Plaintiff.

B. Around August 2013, the Plaintiff: (a) joined A as a fraternity to the 30 million Won operated by the Defendant, and (b) guaranteed C’s joint guarantee for C’s payment of the fraternity; (c) the unpaid fraternity was KRW 6 million; and (d) around 2013, D joined D as a fraternity to the 10 million sequence operated by the Defendant and guaranteed D’s payment of the fraternity; and (c) the unpaid fraternity was KRW 3.5 million.

After all, the Plaintiff, upon joining the first unit of the No. 1 of this case’s order on September 27, 2016, decided to deduct KRW 9.5 million from the amount to be received, the amount of the said guaranteed obligation to repay the total amount of KRW 9.5 million.

According to the instant system, the Plaintiff received KRW 11.4 million (i.e., principal amount of KRW 1.5 million - KRW 1.5 million - KRW 1.5 million). If the Plaintiff deducteds KRW 9.5 million from the Defendant around April 2016, 170, the unpaid amount of the guaranteed obligation of KRW 1.5 million and KRW 1.3 million borrowed from the Defendant.

On December 20, 2016, the Defendant remitted KRW 1770,00 to the Plaintiff, and thus, since all of the settlement was completed, the Defendant cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s request.

2. On September 27, 2016, the Plaintiff 1 was the last sequence of the instant order of priority.

arrow