logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2015.01.28 2014가단9778
청구이의
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. B obtained a loan of KRW 3,200,000 from ELD Card Co., Ltd. on February 13, 2003 by setting the lending period of KRW 24 months and delay damages rate of 24% per annum. The said loan transaction agreement (hereinafter “instant loan transaction agreement”) contains the Plaintiff’s name, resident registration number, address, and telephone number in the joint guarantor column of the said loan transaction agreement, and the Plaintiff’s seal is affixed on the name side of the Plaintiff’s name.

B. The Defendant acquired the above loan claims and joint and several surety claims from EL Card Co., Ltd. at that time, and the above assignment of claims was notified to B and the Plaintiff.

C. On June 7, 2010, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking the payment of the above joint and several liability claim with the Incheon District Court Decision 2010Da132056, Jun. 16, 2010, the Defendant received a decision of performance recommendation that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant the amount of KRW 7,790,415 and the amount of KRW 2,761,985 calculated at the rate of 25% per annum from May 28, 2010 to the date of full payment,” and the said decision of performance recommendation became final and conclusive on August 4, 2010.

(hereinafter “instant decision on performance recommendation”). 【No dispute exists concerning the grounds for recognition, and the purport of Gap’s entries and arguments as to each of subparagraphs 1 through 4.

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion did not have signed and sealed the loan transaction agreement of this case as a joint and several surety, and there was no fact that the Plaintiff entered into a joint and several guarantee agreement with the ELD Card Co., Ltd., and therefore, compulsory execution based on the decision of execution recommendation of this case shall not

3. We examine the judgment. The defendant asserts that, at the time of the loan transaction agreement of this case and joint and several sureties agreement, Eul delegated the authority to conclude joint and several sureties agreement with the plaintiff, he had the power of delegation in the name of the plaintiff, certificate of personal seal impression, resident registration certificate, resident registration certificate, resident registration certificate and seal impression and entered into joint and several sureties card company. The above evidence and Eul evidence 1 to 5 are stated in this court

arrow