(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.10.21 2015나26162

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.10.21 2015나26162

대여금반환

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the defendant's grounds for appeal as set forth in the following 2. Thus, this case shall be quoted by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant

A. Defendant E argues that the instant secondary arrangement constitutes a light that does not correspond to the instant primary arrangement, and thus, Defendant E extinguished the instant primary obligation, and that Defendant E’s joint and several liability was extinguished. 2) Competitive arrangement is a contract under which the main part of the existing obligation is modified to extinguish the existing obligation and to establish a new obligation that is not similar thereto.

In the instant case, the Plaintiff and B cannot be deemed to have entered into a novation agreement only with the transfer of the borrowed principal and the outstanding interest or delay damages under the First Use Agreement as principal, and the repayment period has been extended (Evidence A to No. 1) or the Plaintiff, after the first Use of the instant First Use, to the national bank account in the name of B, of KRW 20 million on August 23, 2010, and KRW 22 million on December 17, 2010, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that there was a mutual agreement between the Plaintiff and B to extinguish the existing debt and to establish the new debt without identity. Thus, the Defendant’s assertion on the said novation is not acceptable.

3) Ultimately, the second-use agreement of this case provides that the sum of the first-use loan of this case and the interest on non-payment or damages for delay shall be the borrowed amount, and the principal shall be newly determined and the maturity thereof shall be extended, and the joint and several guarantee of Defendant E with respect to the first-use loan of this case shall be valid. (B) The expiration of the guarantee period shall be the same as before the amendment by Act No. 10186, Mar. 24, 2010; and (hereinafter the above legal name shall be the same.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

-보증인 보호를 위한 특별법

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2015.12.04 2015나26629

-서울고등법원 2016.10.25 2016나4541

-대전지방법원 2016.10.28 2016가단4812

-부산고등법원 2020.01.09 2019나51584