logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2017.06.08 2016가단239030
구상금
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 49,093,511 and KRW 10,722,598 among the Plaintiff’s KRW 12% per annum from February 22, 2014 to August 31, 2015.

Reasons

1. The facts in the separate sheet concerning the cause of the claim do not conflict between the parties, or each statement in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 (including a serial number) can be acknowledged by comprehensively considering the overall purport of pleadings. Barring any special circumstance, the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 49,093,511 won (37,361,43 won for delay delay of principal due to outstanding reimbursement of KRW 10,722,598 plus KRW 878,460 for additional guarantee fees of KRW 878,420 for cancellation of provisional attachment of KRW 128,100 for additional guarantee fees of KRW 2,922,598 for the amount of KRW 10,722,598 from February 22, 2014 to August 31, 2015, the agreement shall be 12% per annum from the day after the date following the date of subrogation to August 31, 2015 to 2017.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. (i) The Defendant asserted that the instant credit guarantee contract is null and void, and the Defendant, on January 21, 2010, took out a loan from the Korea Land Trust to intermediate payment from the Nonghyup Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “FFF”) in the process of purchasing B apartment house Nos. 106, 1004, in the land trust of the Incheon Free Economic Zone, and entered into a housing finance credit guarantee contract (hereinafter “instant credit guarantee contract”) with the Plaintiff for the Defendant’s intermediate payment obligation to the Nonghyup Bank on the same day.

However, the plaintiff did not clearly explain the contents and effects of the credit guarantee contract of this case to the defendant, and did not explain them by providing relevant information or data.

Therefore, the instant credit guarantee contract is null and void against Article 3 of the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions and Article 24-4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Banking Act.

In full view of the written evidence No. 1-1 and No. 2, the defendant of this case.

arrow