(영문) 부산지방법원서부지원 2020.02.12 2019가단113404

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) 부산지방법원서부지원 2020.02.12 2019가단113404

보증채무금

Text

1. The defendant shall pay 43,738,250 won to the plaintiff and 12% per annum from January 14, 2020 to the day of complete payment.

Reasons

1. The plaintiff's assertion asserts that "the defendant assumed the defendant's obligation of KRW 44,938,250 to the plaintiff, and paid KRW 1,200,00 among them, the defendant is obligated to pay the remaining amount of KRW 43,738,250 to the plaintiff (=4,938,250 won - 1,200,000) and damages for delay."

2. Determination:

A. According to the overall purport of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the Plaintiff supplied chemical products, etc. to C from September 26, 2016, and C’s obligation to pay goods to the Plaintiff amounting to KRW 44,938,250 on May 17, 2019. The Defendant prepared a letter of payment to the Plaintiff on July 9, 2019 and delivered it to the Plaintiff on behalf of the Plaintiff.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant accepted C's obligation to pay the price for the above goods to the plaintiff.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 43,738,250 won remaining after deducting the amount of 1,200,000 won from the price of the above goods and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 12% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from January 14, 2020 to the day of complete payment, as the plaintiff seeks.

B. As to this, the Defendant asserts to the effect that “C dies on or around May 2019 and D, an son, succeeded to the obligation to pay the price for the goods to the Plaintiff, and thus, the Plaintiff is obliged to preferentially pay the price for the goods of this case from the above D.”

On the other hand, it is difficult to view that the Defendant assumed the obligation to pay the goods to the Plaintiff by C as seen earlier, and the submitted evidence alone is insufficient to deem that there was an agreement between the parties to exempt the obligation of C from the obligation, and it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant acquired the obligation of C in overlapping or concurrently.

Supreme Court Decision 200 delivered on April 2002

참조조문

-소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법

유사 판례

-부산지방법원서부지원 2020.02.12 2019가단113404

-인천지방법원 2015.11.18 2015나6272

-수원지방법원 성남지원 2018.07.13 2017가단224189

-서울동부지방법원 2015.07.02 2015가단107435

-청주지방법원 2019.03.27 2018가단26444