(영문) 대구지방법원 2019.05.30 2018가합385

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) 대구지방법원 2019.05.30 2018가합385

대여금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Determination on the claim for the performance of guaranteed obligation

A. The Plaintiff asserted from December 9, 2010 to January 20, 2013, the Plaintiff lent a total of KRW 211,00,000 to E, and the Defendant guaranteed the payment of the debt borrowed from E (hereinafter “the debt borrowed from this case”).

The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming the repayment of the instant loan debt against E, and the judgment in favor of the Plaintiff became final and conclusive in the lawsuit above.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay to the plaintiff the borrowed amount of KRW 211,00,000 as well as damages for delay of KRW 150,000 as recognized in the above judgment as the repayment of the guaranteed obligation.

B. According to the evidence No. 1-1 of the judgment, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against E, etc. for a loan claim (Dasan District Court 2016Gahap13588), and on August 31, 2017, the above court rendered a judgment with respect to E, “E shall pay to the Plaintiff 211,00,000 won and 150,000,000 won with interest of 15% per annum from December 10, 2016 to the date of full payment,” and the above judgment becomes final and conclusive on September 18, 2017.

However, it is not sufficient to recognize the fact that the defendant guaranteed the debt of the loan of this case by only the descriptions of No. 1-8 of the evidence No. 1-1 to No. 8, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, the following circumstances are revealed in Gap evidence 1-1 through 8, Eul evidence 1-1-1, Eul evidence 1-2, and Eul evidence 1-3, i.e.,, the defendant asserts that he did not have guaranteed the debt of the loan of this case; ② some of the loan certificates concerning the debt of the loan of this case (hereinafter "the loan certificate of this case") (the loan certificate of this case") (the loan of this case) (the loan of this case No. 1-2 through No. 6) were deleted and entered as a creditor who is not the defendant; ③ in the above lawsuit, the defendant, who is not the plaintiff, as the creditor for the debt of the loan of this case.

유사 판례

-서울동부지방법원 2018.10.05 2018가합594

-서울동부지방법원 2018.04.11 2017나22836

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.03.21 2016가합32297

-광주지방법원 2016.07.29 2016가단7826

-수원지방법원평택지원 2015.11.06 2014가합10665