logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원남원지원 2019.09.04 2019가단10652
대여금
Text

1. Jeonju District Court Order 2009No. 225 against the Defendant (Counterclaim Defendant) of the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

Reasons

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. From February 6, 1998, the Plaintiff: (a) from Namwon-si around 1998, sold liquefied petroleum gas to F; and (b) around 199, Defendant B and C operated H from Namwon-si G.

Defendant D is the spouse of Defendant C.

B. Defendant B supplied gas from the Plaintiff for business operations around 1999, and failed to pay part of the gas price to the Plaintiff.

C. On April 15, 1999, Defendant B changed the obligation of the above gas price to the loan obligation of KRW 10 million, and entered into a contract with the maturity of payment to set the interest at 2% per month on June 15, 199, and Defendant C and D jointly guaranteed the above obligation.

(hereinafter “instant contract”). D.

The Plaintiff filed an application against the Defendants for a payment order seeking the performance of obligations under the instant contract with the Jeonju District Court Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch of 2009Gu225, and the said court issued the Defendants a payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”) on April 13, 2009.

The above payment order was finalized on April 29, 2009.

E. The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit to extend the extinctive prescription of a claim under the instant contract.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Assertion and determination

A. The fact that the Plaintiff and the Defendants concluded the instant contract is as seen earlier.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff a loan of KRW 10 million and damages for delay.

B. 1 As to this, the Defendants performed compulsory execution against Defendant B and C’s property on August 199, and received full repayment of the amount of loan claims under the instant contract.

In addition, a loan claim under the instant contract is a commercial bond and the five-year extinctive prescription has expired before the application for the instant payment order.

Therefore, according to the instant contract.

arrow