logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.11.28 2017가단49455
양수금
Text

1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant A Co., Ltd. shall have 100,880,834 won and 70,000,000 won among them from July 14, 2007.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 15, 2002, Korea Exchange Bank loaned KRW 70,000,000 to Defendant A under joint and several sureties (Limit of guarantee: KRW 91,000,000) on May 15, 200, and on November 9, 2004, transferred its loan claims to the Social Co., Ltd.

On August 14, 2007, Seoul Central District Court 2007dan146913 filed a lawsuit against Defendant Company and E claiming the amount of the claim, and the judgment was affirmed at that time.

The order is that the defendant company shall pay 10,880,834 won and 70,000,000 won which are calculated by the rate of 20% per annum from July 14, 2007 to the day of complete payment, and E shall pay 91,00,000 won out of the amount jointly with the defendant company.

B. On September 18, 2012, the social community of the Eastyang transferred its loan claims to the Plaintiff, and completed the notification of the assignment of claims thereafter.

C. On May 11, 2010, E deceased on May 11, 201, and Defendant C and D, the wife, were jointly inherited in proportion to their shares of 2/7.

Meanwhile, Defendant B, C, and D’s inheritance limited approval filed by the Seoul Family Court 2010-Ma6267 was accepted on August 19, 2010.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2 evidence, Eul 1 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. For the interruption of prescription, the Defendant Company should pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 100,880,834 as well as KRW 70,000,00 per annum from July 14, 2007 to the day of full payment.

In addition, within the scope of the property inherited from the deceased E as joint and several surety, Defendant B should pay KRW 39,000,000 (= KRW 91,000,000 x 3/7) to the Plaintiff, and Defendant C and D should pay KRW 26,00,000 (= KRW 91,000,000 x 2/7) respectively.

3. Conclusion, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants is legitimate, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow