(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.09.20 2016가단5145429

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.09.20 2016가단5145429

대여금

Text

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 275,735,457 as well as KRW 163,100,000 among them, from March 23, 2016 to the date of full payment.

Reasons

1. The fact that the plaintiff asserted as the cause of the claim of this case (Provided, That the creditor shall be the plaintiff, the debtor shall be deemed the defendant) is not disputed between the parties, or the whole purport of the pleadings may be acknowledged after considering the whole purport of the pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence 1 through 5.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant, the principal obligor of the instant loan agreement, is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 275,735,457, and the principal amount of KRW 163,10,000,00 per annum from March 23, 2016 to the date of full payment, to the Plaintiff at the rate of 22.5% per annum under the agreement.

2. The defendant's assertion and judgment as to it

A. In light of the following: (a) where the principal and interest of loan of the Defendant arises between the Plaintiff, a loan institution of the Defendant, and Kiz Co., Ltd, a joint guarantor and Kiz (hereinafter “Kiz”), the Defendant entered into a prior agreement with the Defendant to preferentially cover the physical collateral (B apartment No. 507, 302), and the Defendant’s loan from the Plaintiff was appropriated for the above B apartment construction cost; and (b) the executor Hannz is jointly and severally guaranteed the Defendant’s loan and bears the responsibility for succession as a guarantee company, it is unreasonable to make the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant.

B. We examine the judgment. The defendant's burden of payment as the principal debtor of the loan contract of this case is as seen above, and it is not different from that of the plaintiff and implementation company and Korean joint guarantor, which entered into a prior agreement on the above physical security as alleged by the defendant, and there is no evidence to deem Koreanz to have succeeded to all the relationship of the loan contract of this case between the plaintiff and the defendant. Thus, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. The plaintiff's claim is accepted on the ground of the reasoning.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.10.11 2016가단5148367

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.10.25 2016나67013

-부산지방법원 2015.01.27 2014가단73035

-부산지방법원 2015.08.25 2014가단55600

-부산지방법원 2015.01.14 2012가합19942