logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2016.10.28 2016가단1550
대여금등
Text

1. The Plaintiff, Defendant B and E jointly, KRW 120,00,00, and Defendant C and D jointly with Defendant B, respectively, 60,000 of the said money.

Reasons

On December 4, 2007, the Plaintiff lent KRW 120,000,00 to F with interest rate of KRW 3% per month. Defendant B, the actual obligor, jointly and severally guaranteed it. After that, Defendant B decided to pay the said money and interest on August 3, 2010, Defendant C and Defendant B, who introduced Defendant B and Defendant B to the Plaintiff, were guaranteed. Defendant B, the wife of Defendant B, decided to pay the said money together, and Defendant E issued a promissory note with the face value of KRW 120,00,000 on December 22, 2010, is recognized by taking full account of the following purport: (a) there is no dispute between the parties; or (b) the purport of the entire pleadings in each of the arguments made by Defendants B and B, the Plaintiff; (c) Defendant B, the wife of Defendant B, and (d) the issuance of a notarized promissory note with face value of KRW 120,000,00.

According to the above facts of recognition, Defendant B and E are jointly obligated to pay the agreed interest and delay damages within the scope of the Interest Limitation Act as well as 120,000,000 won. Defendant C and D jointly with Defendant B are jointly obligated to pay the agreed interest and delay damages within the scope of the Interest Limitation Act. Defendant C and D are jointly obligated to pay the agreed interest and delay damages as 60,000,000 won among the above 120,000,000 won and the agreed interest and delay damages.

Defendant B asserted that 120,000,000 won out of 446,080,000 won of his claim to G was transferred by the Plaintiff, but there is no evidence to acknowledge this, the above assertion is rejected.

Therefore, all of the Plaintiff’s claims against the Defendants are accepted.

arrow