logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.01.11 2016가단119722
신용카드이용대금
Text

1. The Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 25,727,597 as well as KRW 24,878,72 as well as full payment from July 20, 2016.

Reasons

1. According to the evidence evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) entered into a credit card use agreement with the Plaintiff on March 21, 2016, and Defendant B jointly and severally guaranteed the Defendant Company’s obligation to use the credit card up to the limit of KRW 60,00,000,00, and as of July 19, 2016, the obligation to use the credit card as of July 19, 2016 was totaled KRW 25,727,597 (= Principal KRW 24,878,722, delay damages amounting to KRW 848,475) and the agreed interest rate for delay is KRW 24.5% per annum.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendants jointly and severally pay to the plaintiff 25,727,597 won and 24,878,722 won from July 20, 2016 to the date of full payment of 24.5% per annum from July 20, 2016, which is the day following the date of calculating the final damages for delay, and the defendant B is obligated to pay the damages within the limit of 60,000,000 won, which is the guarantee limit.

2. Defendant B asserts that no joint and several sureties contract was concluded with the Plaintiff.

However, in light of the circumstances where Defendant B’s signature and seal is attached to Defendant B’s identification card, it is recognized that “Defendant B’s signature and seal” in the evidence No. 1 (written application for membership of a credit card holder) is identical to that of “Defendant B’s signature and seal” which did not dispute the authenticity of the Defendants, and that the signature and seal of the Plaintiff employee is attached to “self-verification column.”

Furthermore, the existence and content of an expression of intent in accordance with the contents of the document should be recognized unless there is a clear and acceptable counter-proof that the contents of the document are denied if the document is deemed to have been authentic. There is no evidence to deny the contents of the above disposition document.

Therefore, Defendant B’s above assertion is without merit.

3. Full acceptance of the Plaintiff’s claim

arrow