logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2017.02.15 2016가단233896
구상금
Text

1. The Defendant’s annual interest in KRW 45,410,082 and KRW 11,060,269 among the Plaintiff, from May 8, 2014 to August 31, 2015.

Reasons

1. Each fact in the separate sheet of the judgment on the cause of the claim is without dispute between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the entries in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence No. 1 (including serial numbers), and the overall purport of pleadings. Thus, the defendant, barring special circumstances, has an obligation to pay the plaintiff 45,410,082 won (the balance of subrogated payment + KRW 11,060,269 + the amount of final delay delay damages + KRW 33,42,73 + additional guarantee fees + KRW 798,940 + the amount of additional guarantee fees plus KRW 128,100) plus the balance 11,060,269, the amount of subrogated payment, from May 8, 2014 to August 31, 2015, the agreement rate of KRW 12% per annum from the day following the date of subrogation to the date of full payment, to the date of 15% per annum per annum per annum from the date following the date of the claim and amendment.

2. The defendant's defense against the defendant was sold in lots B apartment units from the non-party Korean land trust, and was given a loan from the foreign exchange bank, and entered into a housing finance credit guarantee contract with the plaintiff on the defendant's part payment obligation to the foreign exchange bank. The plaintiff did not explain to the defendant that the defendant entered into a guarantee contract on part payment obligation to the above foreign exchange bank, and did not explain the contents of the contract by providing the pertinent information or data, and the above housing finance credit guarantee contract in violation of the Terms and Conditions Regulation Act and the Enforcement Decree of the Banking Act is invalid as an unfair act.

According to each description of Gap's evidence 1-1, Gap's evidence 2-1, and Eul's evidence 2-1 and 2, the defendant concluded a housing finance credit guarantee agreement with a foreign exchange bank entrusted by the plaintiff, and received a copy of the agreement, etc. while concluding a loan agreement with the foreign exchange bank entrusted by the plaintiff.

arrow