본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
전주지방법원 2018.11.23 2017나8633

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 74,497,654 as well as the full payment with respect thereto from February 23, 2013.


1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 9, 2012, the Plaintiff and C drafted a loan certificate with the purport that the Plaintiff loans KRW 100 million to C at interest rate of 30% per annum and on October 9, 2012. The Defendant, who is a child of C, jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation to borrow money to the Plaintiff according to the above certificate (hereinafter “the obligation to borrow money of this case”).

B. Meanwhile, on May 24, 2012, D, other ASEAN, concluded a mortgage agreement with E on the land and building located in the Republic of Korea (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”) located in Yansan-gu and Jeonju-si, and completed the registration of creation of the mortgage (hereinafter “instant mortgage”) with E and the maximum amount of debt KRW 100 million on May 25, 2012, which was received on May 25, 2012 by the Jeonju District Court No. 24781.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant, a joint and several surety for the instant loan obligation, is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 74,497,654 won calculated by deducting KRW 25,502,346, which is paid by the Plaintiff from KRW 100,000,000, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 30% per annum from February 23, 2013, which is the day following the date of the final repayment of the instant loan obligation, which the Plaintiff seeks after the due date.

3. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. The summary of the defendant's defense C, the defendant, and D set up a right to collateral security in the future in a de facto marital relationship with the plaintiff under the condition that they would be exempted from the defendant's joint and several debt of this case.

In addition, the debt of the loan of this case was extinguished by the repayment of C, the principal debtor.

Therefore, the plaintiff cannot respond to the request.

B. We examine the judgment on the defense of the exemption 1 exemption, the above facts and the evidence, Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 3, and the Jeonju District Court of this Court.