logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.04.15 2014가합584824
대여금
Text

1. The Defendants are jointly and severally and severally liable to the Plaintiff for KRW 3,021,334,449 as well as KRW 779,529,187 as from May 29, 2014.

Reasons

1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in the entries in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, and 6 (including the serial numbers), with a comprehensive consideration of the whole purport of the pleadings:

On August 1, 2008, Defendant A borrowed KRW 3,300,000,00 on a yearly interest rate of 12% from Seoul Mutual Savings Bank (hereinafter “Seoul Mutual Savings Bank”) and due date of payment from August 1, 2009, and Defendant B guaranteed Defendant A’s above loan obligations.

B. After that, the Defendants partially repaid the above loan obligations. The remaining principal and interest of the loan remains at KRW 779,529,187 as of May 28, 2014, total of KRW 3,021,334,449, and overdue interest rate is 23% per annum.

C. Seoul Mutual Savings Bank was declared bankrupt on September 26, 2013 by Seoul Central District Court 2013Hahap139, and the Plaintiff was appointed as a trustee in bankruptcy.

2. According to the above facts of recognition, barring any special circumstance, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff the money set forth in paragraph (1) of this Article.

The Defendants asserted that the Defendants and Seoul Mutual Savings Bank, a creditor, agreed to reduce the principal and interest of this case to KRW 2,500,000,000,000, and thereafter, they divided and sold the secured trust real estate related to the loan of this case and repaid the above KRW 2,50,00,000 as the proceeds from the sale. However, there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge the agreement on reduction and exemption solely with the descriptions of the evidence in subparagraphs B and 5, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise. Thus, the Defendants’ defense cannot be accepted.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is justified and acceptable.

arrow