beta
Text
1. As to KRW 10,239,957 and KRW 10,071,428 among the Plaintiff, Defendant A shall be from November 23, 2017 to January 3, 2018.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff’s claim for reimbursement against Defendant A 1) The Plaintiff’s credit guarantee agreement with Defendant A (hereinafter “instant credit guarantee agreement”).
After the conclusion of the contract, on March 28, 2017, Defendant A issued a credit guarantee certificate (10,000,000 won for guarantee: the term of guarantee: March 25, 2022; general loan of loan subjects; and the term of guarantee-based branch in Gwangju District Office) to Defendant A. In the event that the Plaintiff performed a guarantee obligation based on a credit guarantee certificate, Defendant A agreed to pay the principal and interest of the loan and damages for delay at an interest rate determined by the Plaintiff within the scope of 25% per annum. The interest rate determined by the Plaintiff is 12% per annum.
3) On March 28, 2017, Defendant A loaned KRW 10,000,00 from the Nonghyup Bank based on the credit guarantee agreement as above, but on July 26, 2017, Defendant A lost the benefit of the term of loans to the natural body, and on November 23, 2017, the Plaintiff subrogated for KRW 10,161,758 to the Nonghyup Bank on November 23, 2017. On the same day, the Plaintiff collected KRW 90,30 out of the amount of subrogation, and the amount of subrogation is KRW 10,071,428. (b) Defendant A’s property disposition 1) concluded a lease agreement with the lessor, under which the lease deposit was paid KRW 20,00,000 with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet with the lessor, and was transferred to the lessor and resided therein.
2) On July 1, 2017, Defendant A, his spouse in his de facto marriage, is the lease deposit claim amounting to KRW 20 million (attached Form 20 million; hereinafter “instant claim”).
(2) The assignment of claims in this case is referred to as the “transfer of claims in this case”
After the transfer, the lessor notified the lessor C, and the lessor C concluded a lease agreement with the Defendant B after consenting to the said transfer of the claim. Meanwhile, at the time of the conclusion of the instant transfer of claim, the Defendant A was in excess of the obligation. [Grounds for recognition] Defendant A: (a) Defendant B does not dispute Article 208(3)2 of the Civil Procedure Act.