logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.10.16 2018가단5032381
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 62,384,352 and KRW 60,69,764 among the Defendants’ 62,384,352 and the Defendants’ 60,69,764 from January 9, 2015 to April 9, 2018.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Defendant A, who entered into a credit guarantee agreement, obtained a loan of KRW 78,00,00 from the Korean bank (hereinafter “Korea bank”), to secure the repayment of the principal and interest of the loan from full-time employee loan, on August 9, 2013, the amount of KRW 70,200,000 out of the amount the Plaintiff’s business entrusted institution and the Defendant A obtained from the Korean bank is the guaranteed amount, and entered into a housing credit guarantee agreement with the term of the guarantee from August 9, 2013 to August 10, 2015 (hereinafter “the credit guarantee agreement in this case”), and was issued a housing credit guarantee agreement (the guarantee number: E) on the same day.

B. Defendant A, as a security of the said housing finance credit guarantee certificate, loaned KRW 78,00,000 from the Bank to the National Housing Fund Loan (Korean Jeonse loan) on August 9, 2013, but did not repay the principal and interest of the loan. The Plaintiff paid KRW 72,947,560 ( principal + KRW 70,200,000 + interest KRW 2,474,560) out of the principal and interest of the loan to the Bank on January 9, 2015, thereby fulfilling the guaranteed obligation based on the said housing finance credit guarantee certificate.

C. On June 2013, Defendant A committed the act of borrowing money for lease on a deposit basis (hereinafter “instant leased object”) of Defendant D’s “F building 1306,000,000, and all of the employment-related documents necessary for the loan for lease on a deposit basis” owned by Defendant D (hereinafter “instant leased object”) were submitted to the Bank, and obtained the said credit guarantee certificate, and received a loan for national housing as security. However, the fact was that Defendant B (lease), Defendant C (Lessee’s solicitation), and Defendant D, a fraudulent lessor, conspired with Defendant D, a lessor, in sequence, to acquire the money for lease on a deposit basis by using the loan system for lease on a deposit basis (hereinafter “instant crime”).

2.2

arrow