logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.05.28 2014나44825
대여금
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. In the first instance court, the plaintiff filed a claim for the performance of the obligation under a joint and several surety contract and damages arising from the conjunctive tort. The court of first instance dismissed the plaintiff's main claim and accepted part of the conjunctive claim.

Since only the defendant filed an appeal, the scope of this Court's trial is limited to the above preliminary claim.

2. Basic facts

A. On September 9, 2013, the Plaintiff leased KRW 3,000,000 at an annual interest rate of 39%, and 36 months from the date of concluding the loan contract (hereinafter “instant loan”).

B. At the time of the instant loan, documents such as a contract under the name of the defendant, a copy of the business registration certificate of the defendant's cafeteria, the defendant's income certificate certificate, and a copy of identification card, etc. were submitted to the plaintiff at the time of the instant loan, the plaintiff's employee called to the defendant prior to the execution of the above loan on the same day, and asked the defendant whether the above contract had been written as a joint guarantor, and the defendant respondeded to "e

C. B lost the benefit of time due to failure to repay the principal and interest of the instant loan after October 16, 2013, and the instant loan obligation remains as of October 16, 2013. The principal amount remaining as of October 16, 2013 is KRW 2,971,397.

【Reasons for Recognition】 The descriptions of Evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

3. Determination on the conjunctive claim

A. According to the above facts of recognition of the liability for damages, the defendant stated that there was a false fact to the plaintiff's employee seeking confirmation by telephone although he did not have written himself in the above joint and several liability contract, and the plaintiff believed that he entered into a valid joint and several liability contract with the defendant due to such deception by the defendant, thereby resulting in the plaintiff's failure to recover the principal amount of KRW 2,971,397.

arrow