logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2017.05.18 2016가단251738
구상금
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 December 6, 2013, the Defendant entered into a credit guarantee agreement (hereinafter “the instant credit guarantee agreement”) between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff with the period of guarantee KRW 72 million as well as the period of guarantee until November 30, 2015. The Defendant received a credit guarantee agreement issued under the instant credit guarantee agreement from a new bank as collateral for a house lease loan of KRW 80 million (hereinafter “instant loan”).

B. On June 11, 2013, the Defendant incurred a credit guarantee accident that has lost the benefit of the term for the instant loan. Accordingly, on June 8, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 74,234,002, including the principal and interest of the instant loan, to a new bank.

C. Under the instant credit guarantee agreement, the Defendant’s delayed damage rate for indemnity payable to the Plaintiff according to the credit guarantee agreement is 12% per annum until August 31, 2015, and 8% per annum from the following day, and the attempted additional guarantee fee is 288,780 won.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 through 9 (including the serial number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the facts found in the judgment as to the primary claim, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 59,667,783 (the Plaintiff was paid KRW 14,56,219 by the Defendant and was paid KRW 74,234,00 by subrogation and was paid KRW 78,780 by subrogation) and damages for delay from June 9, 2015, including KRW 288,780 by subrogation.

B. The Defendant’s assertion 1) The Defendant concluded a installment repayment agreement between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff regarding the instant claim against the Defendant, and the Defendant did not lose the benefit of time due to its faithful implementation of the installment repayment agreement. As such, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case is deemed unfair. 2) In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, the following facts are revealed in light of the following: (a) the facts acknowledged, (b) the evidence No. 11-2, and (c) the evidence No. 11-3.

arrow