(영문) 전주지방법원 2019.01.09 2018가단7186

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) 전주지방법원 2019.01.09 2018가단7186

청구이의

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. C entered into a credit guarantee agreement with the Defendant and used a loan from the D Union, which is a financial institution under the credit guarantee agreement, and at the time of the above credit guarantee agreement, the Plaintiff, the wife of C, as a joint and several liability for indemnity against the Defendant.

B. In accordance with the aforementioned credit guarantee agreement, the Defendant subrogated for KRW 59,263,396 to the D Cooperatives, and applied for a payment order against the Plaintiff and C as the claim for reimbursement due to the said subrogation at the Jeonju District Court 2015j416 on September 25, 2015.

C. On September 30, 2015, the above court issued an order for payment (hereinafter “instant order for payment”) with the content that “The Plaintiff and C jointly and severally issued to the Defendant the instant order for payment, calculated at the rate of 12% per annum from September 22, 2015 to the date of full payment, with respect to KRW 116,83,808, and the balance of subrogation to KRW 56,879,120, whichever was subrogated, to the Defendant.” The instant order for payment was finalized on October 20, 2015.

On the other hand, the defendant, based on the original copy of the instant payment order, filed an application for the seizure and collection order with the plaintiff as the debtor, E corporation as the third debtor, and with the claim amount of KRW 20,159,700 (the Jeonju District Court 2017TTT 5475), and received a decision of citing the seizure and collection order from the above court on July 10, 2017.

【Unsatisfied facts, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 through 3, Eul evidence 7 and 8 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Plaintiff’s assertion and judgment

A. A. A summary of the argument and C around March 2009, when the Plaintiff or C paid KRW 90 million with the Defendant’s name unexploited employee, the Plaintiff or C agreed to fully exempt the Plaintiff or C from all of the remaining obligations to the Plaintiff or C. Accordingly, according to the Defendant’s employee’s instruction, the Plaintiff’s obligation to the Defendant was extinguished in entirety.

Accordingly, this case is therefore.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.05.31 2016가단5060474

-서울남부지방법원 2016.04.07 2015가단232624

-부산지방법원 2015.11.27 2015가단29486

-서울동부지방법원 2016.05.18 2016가단102437

-전주지방법원 2016.11.30 2015나10359