logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 부천지원 2018.11.22 2018가단10090
대여금
Text

1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant A shall complete the payment of KRW 49,861,029 and KRW 30,000 among them from July 24, 2018.

Reasons

1. Claims against Defendant A and C

(a) Indication of claims: To be as shown in the reasons for the claims;

(b) Judgment made by each confession: Article 208 (3) 2 of the Civil Procedure Act;

2. Claim against the defendant B

A. 1) On December 9, 2009, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 30,00,000 to A on December 9, 2009 to the Plaintiff on December 9, 201 due date, interest rate fluctuation rate (3.1%) and delay compensation rate: 21% per annum (hereinafter “instant loan”).

(2) On December 1, 2009, Defendant B guaranteed the instant loan obligation to the Plaintiff within the limit of KRW 39,000,000.

3) The time limit and time limit for the instant loan obligations were extended, and the maturity date thereafter was December 9, 2014. 4) The Plaintiff, as of July 23, 2018, has claims of KRW 30,000,000 with respect to the instant loan, interest of KRW 19,861,029, total amount of KRW 49,861,029 with respect to the instant loan.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of claim and the claim of Defendant B, Defendant B, the neighboring guarantor, is jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 39,00,000,000 per annum from September 1, 2018 to the date of complete payment, which is the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case. Defendant B’s assertion and judgment that Defendant B refused the extension of the collateral guarantee to the Plaintiff, thereby refusing the extension of the collateral guarantee, and thus, Defendant B’s collateral guarantee for the instant loan obligation was terminated on December 2, 2013. Since the Plaintiff provided or extended funds at will to the Plaintiff, Defendant B did not have any obligation to pay the instant loan obligation, and further, Defendant B did not request the Plaintiff to use the loan of this case only for internal audit after December 2, 2013 and did not request the Plaintiff to prepare the loan extension documents.

As seen earlier, Defendant B was on 1, 2009.

arrow