(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.11.01 2016나71456

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.11.01 2016나71456

보증채무금

Text

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On January 2, 2015, B obtained a loan (hereinafter “instant loan”) by setting the interest rate of KRW 4,000,000 from the Plaintiff as 34.8% per annum. In the process of the said loan, the joint and several guarantee contract under the Defendant’s name (hereinafter “instant joint and several guarantee contract”) stating that “the Defendant is jointly and severally and severally liable within the limit of KRW 5,200,000,” was prepared and submitted to the Plaintiff.

B. Around that time, the Plaintiff’s employee contacted with the Defendant’s mobile phone number stated in the above joint and several liability contract, and confirmed whether the intent of the joint and several liability contract was written in writing. In response to the question of the Plaintiff’s employee, the Defendant confirmed that there was the fact that it was written out

C. As of October 28, 2015, B’s loan obligations in this case remain in KRW 3,621,535 as principal.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 6, and 8, or sound, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion (1) The Defendant written his/her own signature in the instant joint and several guarantee contract concerning B’s loan obligations, and confirmed the intent of the joint and several guarantee and the signature of the said contract by telephone to the Plaintiff’s employee, thereby concluding the contract with the Plaintiff valid.

② Even if the Defendant did not sign the contract for joint and several sureties, the Defendant granted the basic power of representation to B, and as long as there were justifiable grounds to believe that the Plaintiff was the Defendant’s own signature through the procedure for identification based on the cellular phone, etc., the Defendant is liable to represent the Defendant beyond his authority.

Therefore, the defendant should perform the guaranteed obligation as a joint and several surety of the loan of this case.

B. The former guarantor before being amended by Act No. 13125, Feb. 3, 2015; hereinafter referred to as the “former guarantor”).

참조조문

-보증인 보호를 위한 특별법

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.10.13 2017나1492

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.06.16 2016나69996

-서울동부지방법원 2017.11.01 2017나21765

-서울남부지방법원 2018.10.11 2018나55041

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.11.01 2018나11663