logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2017.12.21 2017나202341
대여금
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the mother of the net F, and the Defendant is the spouse of F who completed the marriage report with F on June 3, 2005.

B. The Plaintiff owned the G building 105 dong 1202 (hereinafter “instant real estate”). On April 16, 2009, the Defendant and the mortgagee set up the right to collateral security as the Samsung Life Insurance Co., Ltd., and on April 17, 2009, the Defendant borrowed KRW 150,000,000 from the said company as collateral.

(hereinafter “instant loan”). C.

F and the Defendant entered a separate state from April 2013, and thereafter was in progress litigation, such as divorce between F and the Defendant, and F died on January 5, 2016 during the said litigation.

Since then, the Plaintiff repaid interest of KRW 14,681,41 on March 10, 2016, KRW 617,742 on March 25, 2016, and KRW 635,168 on May 3, 2016 on the instant loan obligations, and repaid KRW 14,681,417 on the instant loan obligations remaining until May 24, 2016 to cancel the right to collateral security established on the instant real estate.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence No. 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff, as a surety’s surety, acquired the Defendant’s obligation under the instant loan from Samsung Life Insurance Co., Ltd. on behalf of the Defendant, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the said subrogated payment to the Plaintiff. Even if F is the actual user of the instant loan as alleged by the Defendant, the Defendant, as a heir of F, should pay the Plaintiff the amount equivalent to 3/7 of the inheritance share out of the amount claimed by F, as a reimbursement. 2) The Defendant’s assertion that the instant loan was used only in the name of the Defendant as a matter of credit rating, etc. for the use of F’s business funds.

arrow