logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 동부지원 2018.04.26 2017가단212202
보증채무금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On August 23, 2010, the Plaintiff employed E Co., Ltd. and F Co., Ltd.’s vehicle dispatch staff as the Defendant’s attached D as of August 23, 2010, and worked until May 1, 2017.

B. Upon request from D, etc., the Plaintiff has repeated lending and repayment of operating funds to E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) from 2011 to 2017.

C. At the time of May 25, 201, the Defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the Plaintiff’s loan of KRW 30 million with respect to the Nonparty Company. On June 22, 2012, again, on June 22, 2012, the Nonparty guaranteed the Nonparty Company’s obligation of KRW 1.5 million with respect to the Plaintiff. On November 6, 2012, the Defendant guaranteed the Nonparty Company’s obligation of KRW 15 million with respect to the Plaintiff.

D On April 23, 2014, with the repayment to the Plaintiff by January 11, 2013, as well as the remaining debt amount of KRW 437 million, a notarized deed with D as a joint and several surety against the debtor. On May 23, 2017, the non-party company made and issued to the Plaintiff a notarized deed with D as to the loan amount of KRW 892 million as of May 20, 2017.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap 2-1, 2, Gap 4, 5, 15, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserts that, on June 2017, since the remaining debt of the non-party company is equivalent to KRW 880,80,000,000,000,000,000, which is the joint and several surety, the Defendant is liable to pay the amount of KRW 15,000,000,000 as the surety and the damages for delay thereof, the Defendant asserts that the Defendant had extended the loan and the repayment between the Plaintiff and the non-party company and the Defendant’

In this regard, although there is no evidence to view that the non-party company repeatedly borrowed and repaid the money from the plaintiff without setting the repayment date with the same interest rate, the non-party company has set the repayment date, but where the non-party company pays part of the money, it has appropriated the remaining money first to the interest.

arrow