logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.12.24 2015가단85617
대여금 등
Text

1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant A, within the limit of the property inherited from C, shall not exceed 248,679,783 won and 132,968.

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff, on October 16, 2002, lent KRW 250,000,000 to C without distinguishing the original lending bank from one bank prior to the merger.

After that, the final due date became October 16, 2010.

Defendant B jointly and severally guaranteed Defendant B’s loan obligation amounting to KRW 300,000,000,000.

On May 3, 2015, the amount of the loan obligations as of May 3, 2015, is KRW 132,968,197, and interest and delay damages KRW 115,71,586, plus KRW 248,679,783, and the rate of delay interest is 15% per annum.

C died on June 26, 2010, and children D and E renounced inheritance, and the wife Defendant A renounced inheritance qualification.

[Grounds for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleading

2. Accordingly, barring any other circumstances, Defendant A is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 248,679,783 won and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from May 4, 2015 to the date of full payment. Defendant B is jointly and severally liable with Defendant A to pay the Plaintiff 300,000,000 won.

Defendant B made a guarantee until the due date is extended in 2006, but did not make a guarantee when the due date is extended after 2007, and therefore, Defendant B’s assertion that there is no liability for guarantee. However, Article 7 of the Special Act on the Protection of Suretys, which provides for the extension of the due date of the principal obligation, applies to the guarantee contract which first concludes or renews the due date after September 22, 2008, and Article 7 of the Special Act on the Protection of Suretys, which provides for the extension of the due date of the principal obligation, applies to the guarantee contract which first terminates or renews the due date after 207,

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition by admitting it.

arrow