beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s 16,425.58 US dollars and 4.89% per annum from November 30, 2012 to May 2, 2013 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On June 25, 2009, the Plaintiff bank agreed to provide payment guarantee with respect to the L/C to the non-party company (hereinafter “non-party company”) within the limit of USD 70,000. On July 29, 2010, the Plaintiff bank agreed to increase the maximum amount of the contract to USD 30,000 to USD 10,000 and agreed to extend the payment guarantee period on June 27, 2012 to the end of June 21, 2012, and again to extend the payment guarantee period to June 26, 2012 by the end of June 21, 2013.
B. In relation to the above payment guarantee, the Defendant Fund issued a credit guarantee certificate with the term of guarantee on June 25, 2009 to June 24, 2010, which provides that the amount of loan shall be at least 70,000 U.S. dollars, and at least 95% of the amount of guarantee shall be at least 95%. The Defendant Fund extended the term of guarantee on three occasions, including June 18, 2010, June 13, 2011, and June 18, 2012, and finally issued a notice of change of the terms and conditions of credit guarantee to the effect that the term of guarantee shall expire on June 21, 2013.
C. On July 3, 2012, with respect to the import of goods equivalent to USD 15,727.7 from a Italian customer, the Plaintiff bank issued a credit with the date of the shipment of the Italian customer as of July 20, 2012; July 30, 2012; July 30, 2012; and on July 30, 2012, the date of the settlement of the import price of the Nonparty company as of 120 days after the miscarriage period; and on July 30, 2012, the Plaintiff bank paid USD 17,290.09 to the Italian customer.
On the other hand, the non-party company approved that the above payment guarantee agreement was applied to the above payment guarantee agreement at the time of the above payment guarantee agreement with the plaintiff bank. According to the above terms and conditions, the debtor's rehabilitation application constitutes grounds for loss of benefit of time. The non-party company filed a rehabilitation application with the Seoul Central District Court as Seoul Central District Court 2012 Gohap175 on September 24, 2012, and the plaintiff bank was separated from the plaintiff bank until the date of closing argument of this case.