(영문) 수원지방법원 2020.05.28 2019가단561285

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) 수원지방법원 2020.05.28 2019가단561285

보증채무금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 29, 2005, D borrowed KRW 50 million from the Plaintiff as of November 28, 2005, under the Defendant’s joint and several sureties’s joint and several liability.

B. On February 6, 2007, D drafted a promissory note No. 10 million won at par value, issue date, January 30, 2007, and March 31, 2007, for the payment of the above loan.

C. From October 31, 2014 to April 30, 2019, the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff KRW 5 million in total by 500,000,000 among 50 times.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the defendant, as a joint and several surety, is obligated to pay the remaining loan amount of KRW 45 million and delay damages to the plaintiff, unless there are special circumstances.

3. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. As to the defense of performance, the defendant asserted that D repaid the entire obligation of the above borrowed money, but there is no evidence to acknowledge the above assertion, and the defense is without merit.

B. 1) As to the defense of extinctive prescription, the Defendant asserts that the Defendant’s debt owed to the Plaintiff, which is the principal debt, was extinguished due to the expiration of the extinctive prescription period. 2) Even if the extinctive prescription of the principal debt was interrupted, the extinctive prescription of the principal debt is not interrupted. In a case where the principal debt is extinguished due to the expiration of the extinctive prescription period, the principal debt shall be naturally extinguished according to the nature of the principal debt regardless of the interruption of prescription of the principal debt (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da62476, May 14, 2002). In light of such legal principles, as seen earlier, the Defendant, as a joint and several surety, partly repaid to the Plaintiff a joint and several surety debt owed by the Defendant until April 30, 2019, the extinctive prescription of the Plaintiff’s joint and several surety credit against the Defendant

As such, the defendant is required to do so.

참조판례

-대법원 2002. 5. 14. 선고 2000다62476 판결

유사 판례

-수원지방법원평택지원 2017.11.15 2017가단8017

-서울남부지방법원 2016.02.17 2015가단42043

-서울남부지방법원 2021.04.08 2020나58364

-부산지방법원 2017.03.22 2017가합219

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.05.20 2015나61650