logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.05.09 2017나60590
대여금 등 청구의 소
Text

1. Of the part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff who is ordered to pay below.

Reasons

Basic Facts

The plaintiff (the mutual savings bank prior to the change) of the performance guarantee insurance policy developed a loan product to be repaid by the construction mutual aid association after the maturity of the loan when it executes the loan with the right to claim the return of the investment deposit against the construction companies with insufficient investment deposit.

Accordingly, on November 27, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into an entrustment contract for loan recruitment business (hereinafter “instant entrustment contract”) with D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) to entrust loan recruitment business and pay fees in the event of loan solicitation. On the same day, the Plaintiff entered into a business agreement specifying D’s scope of business and method (hereinafter “instant business agreement”).

On November 27, 2012, the Defendant issued a performance guarantee insurance policy (hereinafter “instant insurance policy”) to guarantee the Plaintiff’s damage due to D’s nonperformance within the limit of KRW 50 million by making D’s policyholder and the Plaintiff as the insured.

On March 20, 2013, the Plaintiff implemented the loan (hereinafter “instant loan”) by setting KRW 85 million at the maturity date on June 20, 2014, at the rate of 15% per annum, and at the rate of delay interest rate of 25% per annum on June 20, 2014.

On the other hand, as security of the instant loan to the Plaintiff, A transferred the Plaintiff’s right to claim a return of investment that he/she would lose his/her membership after paying the instant loan to the Construction Mutual Aid Association as the contribution, and agreed to pay in kind the said right to claim a return

In fact, however, the loan of this case was planned by D's loan flight crime.

In other words, D applied for a loan to the Plaintiff by accepting A in a de facto discontinuance of business, and the Plaintiff implemented the loan and directly account of the Construction Mutual Aid Association.

arrow