(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.04.15 2014나38486

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.04.15 2014나38486

대여금

Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the plaintiff with respect to the ancillary claim that orders payment below.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On April 22, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a monetary loan agreement with B and a loan of KRW 5,00,000,000 per annum, 39% per annum, maturity on April 21, 2018, and 39% per annum, and loaned KRW 5,00,000 to B on the same day.

(hereinafter “instant loan”). (b)

B After paying interest on the loan of this case by June 25, 2013, B has continued to pay the principal and interest of the loan of this case, and continues to pay the principal and interest of the loan of this case as of May 12, 2014, and the principal and interest of the loan of this case shall be 5,00,000 won and the corresponding year from June 26, 2013.

7. The agreement up to 25. 160,274 Won and the same year.

7. From May 12, 2014 to May 12, 2014, the principal and interest equivalent to KRW 6,714,930 has not been repaid for the sum of overdue interests of KRW 1,554,656.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Entry of Gap evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings

2. Judgment as to the main claim

A. At the time of the Plaintiff’s assertion of this case’s loan, the Defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the Defendant’s loan obligation amounting to KRW 6,950,00,00, and the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff as a joint and several surety the principal and interest of this case’s loan amounting to KRW 6,714,930, and the principal and interest of the loan amount of KRW

B. 1) Special Act on the Protection of Surety (hereinafter “Surety Protection Act”)

Article 3(1) provides that "a guarantee shall take effect in writing with the name and seal or signature of the guarantor," and Article 11 of the same Act provides that "a contract in violation of this Act and which is disadvantageous to the guarantor shall be null and void."

As such, requiring a document with the name and seal or signature of the guarantor in the declaration of intent of the guarantee is to ensure more clear means of confirmation as to the existence and content of the guarantee, and on the other hand, it appears to the effect that the guarantor does not reach a rush guarantee as soon as possible, and is to provide a guarantee as a result of being familiar with the guarantor.

3.2

참조조문

-보증인 보호를 위한 특별법

유사 판례

-광주지방법원 2014.11.05 2014나51899

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.04.26 2015나70968

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.12.08 2016나32161

-부산지방법원 2020.02.19 2019나52652

-춘천지방법원 2015.02.06 2014나3164