logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2015.08.28 2014나18238
보증채무금
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. Before July 30, 2007, the Plaintiff lent KRW 50 million to C Co., Ltd. with the Defendant’s wife D as the representative director (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co., Ltd.”). On July 30, 2007, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 50 million from the Plaintiff on November 30, 2007, between the Nonparty Co., Ltd and the Defendant, and the Defendant, the Nonparty Co., Ltd. borrowed KRW 50 million from the Plaintiff on November 30, 2007 with the maturity of payment, and the Defendant Co., Ltd. jointly and severally guaranteed the Defendant’s obligation to the Plaintiff.

B. On November 15, 2007, the Plaintiff and the non-party company and the Defendant lent KRW 50 million interest to the non-party company 2% (payment on the 30th day of each month) and the due date specified on December 28, 2007 (hereinafter “the second loan”). The Defendant received a certificate of borrowing that the non-party company is jointly and severally liable for the non-party company’s obligations for the second loan to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff wired KRW 50 million to D’s account on the same day.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Gap evidence Nos. 4 and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the defendant who jointly and severally guaranteed the debt of the first and second loans to the plaintiff of the non-party company in this case is liable to pay to the plaintiff the principal of the first and second loans in this case and interest thereon and delay damages, unless there are special circumstances.

B. Defendant’s defense, etc. 1) The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff’s claim for loans Nos. 1 and 2 of this case against Nonparty Company expired with the lapse of a five-year commercial extinctive prescription, and that the Defendant’s guaranteed liability also extinguished following the extinguishment of the principal obligation. It also constitutes a commercial claim subject to the five-year extinctive prescription period under Article 64 of the Commercial Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Da109500, May 10, 2012). As to the instant case, the health care unit and the Nonparty Company.

arrow