logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2019.06.18 2018가단561950
구상금
Text

1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for KRW 268,365,973 and KRW 180,970,952 from July 31, 2018 to 84.

Reasons

The defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the plaintiff 268,365,973 won, double 180,970,952 won from July 31, 2018, 84,866,130 won from November 8, 2018 to November 20, 2018, which is the last delivery date of the payment order of this case, and damages for delay calculated at 10% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment.

As to this, the Defendants asserted that, after the Defendants filed the instant lawsuit, they would have repaid the loans to the D Bank and E Bank, and that, even if they were to receive a set-off payment from E Bank prior to the filing of the instant lawsuit, such circumstance was not reflected in the Plaintiff’s claim amount.

The aforementioned circumstances asserted by the Defendants are merely issues arising from the settlement between the Defendants and the D Bank and the E Bank, but not from the Plaintiff’s claim amount.

The above assertion by the Defendants is rejected.

The Defendants also asserted that Defendant C had a joint and several surety for the Defendant Company’s indemnity obligation as the representative director of the Defendant Company A (hereinafter “Defendant Company”). Defendant C resigned from the office of representative director of the Defendant Company as of April 24, 2018, prior to actual occurrence of the Defendant Company’s indemnity obligation, and thus, Defendant C did not bear a joint and several surety liability for the amount claimed by the Plaintiff.

As long as the guarantee of the Plaintiff’s D Bank and E Bank was an individual guarantee of a specific ratio for a specific amount of loan (the purport of evidence Nos. 1 and 5 of this Act and the entire pleadings) is asserted by the Defendants, such circumstance does not constitute grounds for denying Defendant C’s joint and several liability for the amount of claim.

The above assertion by the Defendants is also accepted.

arrow