logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2018.07.19 2017나2060650
구상금
Text

1. Of the loan claims in the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount.

Reasons

1. The first instance court accepted the Plaintiff’s claim for reimbursement against the Defendant and the co-defendant B of the first instance court, and partly accepted the Defendant’s claim for reimbursement.

In this regard, the Defendant appealed against the part of the claim for the loan, and thus, the subject of the judgment by this Court is limited to the claim for the loan partially accepted as above.

2. Presumption of premise;

A. The Plaintiff [the name was changed from the Korea Housing and Urban Guarantee Corporation pursuant to Article 4 of the Addenda to the Housing and Urban Fund Act (Act No. 12989, Jan. 6, 2015) on July 1, 2015 to the name of the Korea Housing and Urban Guarantee Corporation; hereinafter “Plaintiff, regardless of whether before or after the change of the name was made; hereinafter “Plaintiff”)]: (a) June 28, 200; (b) interest rate of KRW 5.577 billion per annum; (c) interest rate of KRW 70,000 per annum; (d) interest rate of KRW 14% per annum; (e) payment for delay until June 28, 2014; and (e) payment method (by June 28, 2002);

6. Until December 28, 2000, a loan was made in 12-year equal installments and repayment.

The term "the monetary loan agreement of this case" is "the obligation of the defendant to the loan of this case", and the defendant's obligation is "the obligation of the loan of this case".

B) Although the Plaintiff’s loan provision provides that the initial compensation rate for delay shall be 14% per annum, since December 24, 2003, the rate of delay compensation shall be reduced to 7% per annum. (c) The Defendant holds 370,516 shares of the Plaintiff, and I, an affiliate of the Defendant, as an affiliate of the Plaintiff, held 302,675 shares of the Plaintiff, and offered each of the above shares as security for the loan obligations of this case. From 2014, the Plaintiff paid dividends on the outstanding shares, but the Defendant and I did not pay dividends directly, and appropriated the principal from the loan obligations of this case to pay the principal amount of the loans of this case, 205, 305, 165, 205, 165, 205, 205, 165, 205, 167, 205, 165, 2065, 167, 257, 2015

arrow