logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.08.10 2015가단5331421
구상금 등
Text

1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 60,597,540 with respect to the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from December 9, 2011 to July 11, 2016.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On December 9, 201, the Plaintiff and Defendant A’s guarantee agreement entered into between the Plaintiff and the Defendant A with a new bank (hereinafter “Nonindicted Bank”) under which the Defendant A owed the obligation to lend the employee’s house deposit loan to the Defendant Hanhan Bank (hereinafter “Nonindicted Bank”) at the rate of KRW 56.7 million per annum, and the guarantee period from December 9, 201 to December 9, 2013 (hereinafter “instant guarantee agreement”). Accordingly, the Defendant A obtained a loan at the rate of KRW 63 million per annum on December 9, 2013 and the delayed interest rate of KRW 8.5% per annum.

B. When Defendant A could not repay the above loans to Nonparty A bank after the Plaintiff’s subrogation, on May 13, 2014, the Plaintiff subrogated for KRW 60,597,540 in total of KRW 56,70,00 in principal and interest KRW 3,897,540 in Nonparty A bank.

C. Defendant A and C’s fraud crime 1) Defendant A is the fact that Defendant A committed the instant house from Defendant B, Nam-gu, Incheon, and 306 (hereinafter “instant house”).

A) Although Defendant C did not rent KRW 90,000,000 deposit, in collusion with Defendant C, the lessee prepared a false lease contract under the name of Defendant A and the lessor B, and then received a loan from the Nonparty bank using false employment-related documents necessary for the loan, and the Plaintiff entered into the instant guarantee agreement with the Plaintiff. (2) Defendant A and C were indicted as to the above crime, etc. by the Seoul Southern District Court 2015Kadan316 on March 19, 2015, and the said court sentenced Defendant A to six months of imprisonment with prison labor and ten months of imprisonment with prison labor.

The Plaintiff confirmed that Defendant B’s lease agreement was based on the provision that it should confirm the lease agreement in guaranteeing the loan of the loan of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the leased housing of this case to Defendant B on December 7, 201.

arrow