(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2016.04.28 2015가단248826

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) 서울서부지방법원 2016.04.28 2015가단248826

양수금

Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 75,766,425 and the interest rate of KRW 24% per annum from June 30, 2015 to the date of full payment.

Reasons

1. According to the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 as to the cause of the claim, Eul Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "B") entered into an installment financing contract with BMW X6 xD 12 for the lease period of 36 months, the lease period of 74,794,904, annual interest rate of 11.9%, annual interest rate of 24%, and delayed interest rate of 24% on July 3, 2012 (hereinafter "the contract of this case"), and the defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation of installment financing to the social service Korea, which was conducted by B, for which BMW X6 xD 12 had been transferred from IM6 xD 36 months, the lease period of 36 months, the installment principal (amount of loan application), the interest rate of 74,904, the late payment rate of 24%, and the fact that B received the payment from B to B on July 15, 2012.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 75,766,425 of the unpaid principal as of June 29, 2015 and damages for delay calculated by the rate of 24% per annum, which is the interest rate for delay, from June 30, 2015 to the date of full payment.

2. The defendant's assertion and judgment

A. The Defendant, upon deceiving C and registering B as the representative director, has jointly and severally guaranteed the obligations under the contract of this case, argued that the Plaintiff cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim of this case, but the Defendant was deceiving C.

Even if a third party made a fraud or coercion with respect to a declaration of intention of the other party, it is insufficient to recognize that the other party knew or could have known such intent only if he knew or could have known such fact (Article 110(2) of the Civil Act), and that the statement in Article 110(1) through (4) of the Act knew or could have known that there was a fraud or coercion against the defendant of the other party.

참조조문

-민법 제110조 제2항

유사 판례

-서울서부지방법원 2016.04.21 2015가단242163

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.08.25 2016가단63348

-수원지방법원 2020.05.14 2020가단509719

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.10.25 2017나36009

-대구지방법원 2019.05.23 2018나305589