Text
1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 40,153,450 for the Plaintiff and KRW 6% per annum from December 1, 2016 to December 30, 2016; and (b) for the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The New Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “New Bank”) extended a loan to the Defendant on May 26, 2015, setting the period of KRW 40 million as the Defendant’s living capital.
B. On July 25, 2017, the Plaintiff concluded a guarantee insurance contract for repayment of the said loan between the Defendant and the new bank, the insured amount of KRW 42 million, and the insurance period of May 26, 2015.
C. Around November 2016, the Defendant did not pay interest on the above loan and caused an insurance accident.
On November 30, 2016, the Plaintiff paid insurance money of KRW 40,153,450 to the new bank in accordance with the said insurance contract.
On February 2, 2017, the defendant filed an application for individual rehabilitation by including the plaintiff's claim for indemnity in the list of creditors and is currently undergoing rehabilitation procedures.
(U) The fact that there is no dispute with the Suwon District Court 2017da8716). (Identification Evidence), the entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the obvious fact to this Court, the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of indemnity KRW 40,153,450 and the amount of delay damages at each rate of KRW 6% per annum as prescribed by the Commercial Act from December 1, 2016 to December 30, 2016, the delivery date of a copy of the instant complaint, and KRW 15% per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings, from the following day to the day of full payment.
On February 2, 2017, the defendant asserts that there is an obligation to repay through the rehabilitation procedure since the rehabilitation procedure is in progress after filing an application for individual rehabilitation on February 2, 2017.
The repayment plan was authorized in the individual rehabilitation procedure against the defendant, and the claim of this case was confirmed as individual rehabilitation claims.
The defendant's above assertion is not accepted because there is no assertion or proof of the fact that immunity has become final and conclusive.
3. The plaintiff's claim of this case is justified.