(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.05.31 2017가단105638

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 2018.05.31 2017가단105638

대여금

Text

1. As to KRW 1,044,682,428 and KRW 434,163,954 among the Plaintiff, the Defendant shall be from September 23, 2017 to the date of full payment.

Reasons

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the statement and arguments by the Defendant: (a) the Defendant approved that the basic terms and conditions for banking loan transactions apply on April 29, 201; and (b) agreed on temporary repayment on April 29, 2016 with the Plaintiff’s loan of KRW 1.3 billion from the Plaintiff; (c) the Defendant was unable to repay the total amount of the loan principal upon the lapse of the due date; (d) the Defendant’s claim for the instant loan to the Defendant was included in the Plaintiff’s special loan claims; and (e) as of September 22, 2017, the Defendant’s overdue principal, etc. was included in the Defendant’s loans of KRW 1,04,682,428 (4,163,954 totaled KRW 434,524,492 interest rate per annum 47,993,982), and (e) the maximum interest rate per annum 1,2015.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the overdue interest calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from September 23, 2017 to the date of full payment for the total amount of KRW 1,044,682,428 and the outstanding principal of KRW 434,163,954.

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion and judgment on the instant loan, etc., the Plaintiff created a collateral on April 29, 201 (the maximum amount of claims KRW 1.690 million and KRW 4.690 million) of the establishment registration of a mortgage (the maximum amount of claims KRW 1.69 million and KRW 4.99 million) on the land of Pakistan-si and C, and on the D hotel, which is a building on the said land, the Plaintiff may receive the principal and interest of the instant case by executing the said collateral security. Thus, the Defendant cannot be deemed separately liable for the instant loan to the Plaintiff.

Although the claim in this case is alleged to the effect that it is improper, it is unlawful to seek performance of secured debt separately from the exercise of security right as a result of the obligee’s choice.

Since it cannot be viewed as improper or unjustifiable, it is different.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.06.07 2018가단5005952

-서울남부지방법원 2020.01.14 2019가단261699

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.03.25 2015가단195378

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.11.25 2015가단69226