logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2017.03.23 2016가합106542
구상금
Text

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

Reasons

As the Plaintiff’s assertion on the claim for reimbursement is that C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co., Ltd.”) whose representative director is the Defendant, takes out a loan of KRW 200 million from the National Bank Co., Ltd., the Plaintiff provided the Plaintiff with a building of KRW 150 square meters and its ground (hereinafter “instant real estate”) as a physical security during the Ansan-si period owned by the Plaintiff, and the Defendant also jointly and severally guaranteed the above loan obligations.

Since then, the instant real estate was sold in a voluntary auction procedure.

Therefore, the defendant is obliged to pay 200 million won as the principal of the loan to the plaintiff who is a surety to secure another's property.

Judgment

However, there is no evidence to support the fact that the Plaintiff provided the instant real estate owned by the Plaintiff as a physical security to the Defendant, and the Defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the Defendant’s loan obligations, and even if the Plaintiff’s assertion is acknowledged, there is no assertion or proof as to the amount of the loan obligations of the Nonparty Company repaid through the voluntary auction procedure of the instant real estate, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for reimbursement is without merit without further consideration.

The Plaintiff’s assertion as to the claim for the acquisition of the loan amounting to KRW 120,000,000,000, which the Plaintiff acquired against the Defendant. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the said KRW 120,000 to the Plaintiff.

Judgment

The plaintiff's claim for acquisition of money is premised on the premise that E has a loan claim of KRW 120 million against the defendant, and there is no evidence to acknowledge the fact that the defendant borrowed money from E.

Rather, according to the statements in Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the defendant agreed to settle the amount that the defendant should pay to the plaintiff on May 15, 200 with KRW 20 million. The defendant paid KRW 10 million to the plaintiff on May 15, 200, and the remaining KRW 10 million will be paid immediately after being the business.

arrow