(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.01.20 2016나61725

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 2017.01.20 2016나61725

보증채무금

Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. At the first instance court, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for damages due to the performance of an obligation under a joint and several surety contract and the conjunctive tort. The first instance court dismissed the Plaintiff’s primary claim and accepted the conjunctive claim.

In this regard, the defendant only appealed against the part of the preliminary claim that he lost among the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, the subject of the judgment of this court is limited to the preliminary claim that the defendant appealed.

2. Basic facts

A. On July 31, 2015, the Plaintiff lent KRW 6,000,000 to B, who is the Defendant’s mother, for the interest rate of KRW 34.8% per annum and 60 months for the repayment period of principal and interest, via the brokerage of lending from the Plaintiff.

(hereinafter “instant loans”). (b)

The Defendant submitted the Defendant’s business registration certificate, value-added tax base certificate, and credit certificate to the Plaintiff’s side through B for the joint and several guarantee of the above loan. On July 31, 2015, the Defendant consented to the Plaintiff’s joint and several guarantee of the obligation to repay the loan of this case in the course of conversations with the Plaintiff’s employees. ② the Plaintiff stated that the Defendant signed the copy of the joint and several guarantee contract by facsimile on his own hand

C. Since August 3, 2016, the Defendant did not prepare and give the original copy of the joint and several surety contract to the Plaintiff on the grounds that B was subject to loan fraud.

B on August 27, 2015, it lost the benefit of time due to the failure to repay the loan.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2 through 8, Eul evidence 3, the purport of whole pleadings

3. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition of the liability for damages, the defendant has an intention to conclude a joint and several liability contract with respect to the loan obligations of B by telephone, and he has an employee of the plaintiff who seeks the confirmation by telephone, and prepares the original copy of the joint

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.09.23 2015나846

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.06.11 2014나64843

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.01.08 2014나35616

-서울동부지방법원 2015.09.11 2015가단106043

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.06.01 2016나13405