logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2015.05.07 2014가단227109
대여금
Text

1. The Defendants are jointly and severally and severally liable to the Plaintiff for KRW 384,162,317 and KRW 381,90,183 among them.

Reasons

In full view of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including paper numbers), the facts identical to the entry of the cause of the claim in the annexed sheet can be recognized [the defendant corporation A (hereinafter "the defendant company").

(3) The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 384,162,317 and KRW 381,90,183, the amount of delay interest rate per annum from October 16, 2014 to December 12, 2014, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of KRW 20 per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the date of full payment. Defendant B is jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 442,560,00,000 per annum, which is the maximum amount of guarantee.

As to this, Defendant B merely registered as the representative director of the Defendant Company at the request of the Defendant Company C, which was the actual supervisor of the Defendant Company, and thereafter, it believed only the horses of the Defendant Company, which did not have any financial problems, and signed and sealed the letter of guarantee for the joint and several several surety obligations of the Defendant Company to the Plaintiff upon its request, and thus, there is no obligation to comply with the Plaintiff’s claim. However, it does not constitute a legal ground for refusing the Plaintiff’s claim, and even if there is no evidence suggesting the cancellation of the declaration of intent due to mistake or fraud, it is reasonable to deem that the above Defendant’s mistake was due to one’s gross negligence, and it does not constitute a case where the Plaintiff knew or could have known the fraud of the Defendant, which was the third party. Thus, the Defendant cannot revoke the declaration of intent of the instant continuing guarantee on the ground of mistake or fraud.

(3).

arrow