beta
Text
1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part against Defendant A and D in the instant lawsuit is about February 6, 2015, Seoul District Court 2014Kadan52505 Decided February 6, 2015.
Reasons
1. The defendant A and D are examined ex officio.
The Plaintiff’s decision on February 6, 2015 against the said Defendants was confirmed on February 24, 2015 when the Seoul District Court 2014Da5250525 decided on February 9, 2015 against the Defendant A, and the decision reached February 24, 2015 when two weeks passed since February 9, 2015. It is apparent in the record that the said decision reached February 7, 2015 against Defendant D and became final and conclusive on February 22, 2015.
Thus, the part of the lawsuit against the above defendants in this case terminated by the above reconciliation recommendation decision.
2. Claim against the remaining Defendants
A. Basic facts 1) On March 26, 2004, Defendant G Co., Ltd. concluded a business agreement with Seoul Mutual Savings Bank, etc. to lend part payments to the number of buyers of the instant commercial building on August 5, 2004 (the instant business agreement) with the company that implemented the new construction project of Suwon-si H and six commercial buildings (the instant commercial building). The Seoul Mutual Savings Bank and Defendant G, etc. entered into a business agreement with the Seoul Mutual Savings Bank, etc. on May 26, 2004 on the object, period, and limit of part payments loans (the instant business agreement). Defendant A purchased the first floor of the instant commercial building on May 26, 2004 (the instant sales contract) (the instant sales contract), and in accordance with the instant business agreement, Defendant A purchased part payments of KRW 18,040,000 from the Seoul Mutual Savings Bank on August 13, 2004 (the intermediate payment rate of KRW 18,000,204).
3) Defendants B, C, D, E, F, and G guaranteed the instant loans. 4) Seoul Mutual Savings Bank was declared bankrupt on September 26, 2013, and the Plaintiff was appointed as bankruptcy trustee on the same day.
(Seoul Central District Court Decision 2013Hau139). 5 around June 2007, Defendant G cancelled the instant sales contract with Defendant A, but extended the maturity of the instant loan by six consecutive months in consultation with the Seoul Mutual Savings Bank, and paid interest thereon. Seoul Mutual Savings Bank refused the extension on February 1, 2010 and refused the extension.