(영문) 수원지방법원안산지원 2014.09.30 2014가단1744

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) 수원지방법원안산지원 2014.09.30 2014가단1744

보증채무금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. On November 16, 2008, at a general meeting of the C Union, the Plaintiff claimed that the Plaintiff, a joint guarantor, who was the president of the C Association, is liable to pay the sum of the union’s remuneration obligations, KRW 41,116,132, and delay damages therefrom, to the Plaintiff, who was the president of the C Association from May 23, 2009 to May 201, who was the president of the C Association, is obligated to pay the aggregate of the union’s remuneration obligations, as well as the amount of KRW 489,30,920, which the D Company that was awarded a contract for construction of a new building in the commercial area sold by the union, upon the performance of the union obligations.

On May 23, 2009, with regard to the Defendant’s joint and several sureties of the partnership’s obligation as auditor of the C association, the evidence No. 2-1, No. 4-1, No. 9-1, and No. 10-1 cannot be admitted as evidence because the authenticity is not recognized. According to the evidence No. 6-1, the Assembly of the C association on November 16, 2008 that “as to the current credit amount of KRW 500,000,000,000 shall be provided as security to officers’ property (including shares) and shall be loaned as KRW 500,000,00,000,” the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the Defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the partnership’s obligation as alleged by the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

In addition, even if the defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the union's obligations on May 23, 2009, as alleged by the plaintiff, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the union's remuneration obligations owed to the plaintiff, the president of the union, from May 16, 2009 to May 2010, are included in the scope of the joint and several liability, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

2. The plaintiff's claim is justified.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2016.11.03 2016나6573

-수원지방법원 2015.11.25 2014나37481

-대법원 2016.08.29 2013다50466

-수원지방법원 2020.05.27 2019가합23742

-서울서부지방법원 2014.10.10 2014가합5517