beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff:
A. Defendant A’s 40,109,545 won and its 23,177,798 won out of its money to the date of completion.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On September 2, 1996, Defendant A received a loan of self-reliance deposit from Defendant B under the joint and several sureties (limited collateral guarantee up to 26 million won). The principal and interest of loans as of July 9, 2014 are as follows.
B
B. After June 28, 2013, the Plaintiff acquired the above principal and interest of loan from the Daejeon Agricultural Cooperatives, and notified the Defendant A of the receipt of notification authority of transfer on July 25, 2014. The notification reached the Defendant A around that time.
C. Meanwhile, pursuant to Article 11 of the Regulations on Credit Counseling and Recovery Fund Trust Business, the Plaintiff applies a delay interest rate of 17% per annum below the loan interest rate of the Daejeon Nonghyup Agricultural Cooperatives.
[Ground for Recognition] Defendant A: The judgment of deemed confession (Article 208(3)2 and Article 150(3) of the Civil Procedure Act)
2. Determination:
A. According to Defendant A, Defendant A is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff delay damages calculated at the rate of 17% per annum from July 10, 2014 to the full payment date, which is the day following the base date for calculating the total sum of principal and interest on the loan principal of KRW 40,109,545 and the total amount thereof.
B. (1) As to Defendant B, the Plaintiff is jointly and severally with Defendant A to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 26,00,000,000 and the amount of KRW 23,177,798, the loan principal, which is the loan principal, from July 10, 2014 to the full payment date. However, according to the above facts of recognition, Defendant B is jointly and severally with Defendant A to pay damages for delay on the principal and interest of Defendant A and the principal of the loan within the limit of KRW 26,00,00,000, the limit of the loan guarantee amount. Thus, the part of the Plaintiff’s above assertion in excess is without merit.
(2) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant B is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so ordered as per Disposition.