logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.11.30 2016가단5114456
구상금
Text

1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 34,926,557 to the Plaintiff within the extent of the property inherited from the deceased B; and (b) as to the Plaintiff, on January 2016.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 15, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a credit guarantee agreement with B on the amount guaranteed as KRW 36 million, and B was granted a loan of KRW 40 million at an enterprise bank as collateral in the credit guarantee agreement issued by the Plaintiff.

B. Around March 3, 2016, the Plaintiff repaid 35,284,867 won to an enterprise bank in subrogation of B pursuant to the credit guarantee agreement, and collected 358,310 won on the same day.

C. The rate of damages determined by the Plaintiff at the time of the credit guarantee agreement is 12% per annum from the date of subrogation to the date of payment.

B died on January 6, 2016, and became the heir of C, D, E, F, G and the defendant, who are siblingss.

The Defendant filed a report with the Seoul Family Court 2016-Ma2903 to approve inheritance, and the remaining siblings were accepted by filing a report on renunciation of inheritance with the Seoul Family Court 2016-Ma2904.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, purport of whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 34,926,557 won (35,284,867 won-358,310 won) in the balance of the subrogated amount within the scope of inherited property from B, and to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 12% per annum under the agreement from March 3, 2016 to October 20, 2016, which is the date of service of the application for change of the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim from October 17, 2016, which is the date of service of the application for change of the cause of the claim, and from the following day to the date of full payment, 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion,

3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is justified and acceptable.

arrow