(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.10.19 2018가단536237

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) 수원지방법원 2018.10.19 2018가단536237

구상금

Text

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 183,734,175 and KRW 171,421,187 among them. From June 26, 2008 to August 25, 2008.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff entered into a credit guarantee agreement between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff (hereinafter “B”) on the receipt of a loan from us bank, and the Defendant and C jointly and severally guaranteed the Plaintiff’s obligation to guarantee the deposit. The Plaintiff failed to pay the above loan to us, and the Plaintiff subrogated 245,320,607 won to us on June 25, 2008.

B. On July 3, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a payment order with Suwon District Court 2008Guj3047, and issued a payment order to the Plaintiff on July 3, 2018, stating that “The Defendant jointly and severally received 15% per annum from June 26, 2008 to the delivery date of the original copy of the instant payment order (for the Defendant, August 25, 2008), and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment (for the Defendant, August 25, 2008), the said payment order was finalized as is September 9, 2008.”

C. The Plaintiff collected KRW 73,89,420 from the Defendant and B after the above payment order, and collected KRW 171,421,187, and the remainder of the Plaintiff’s claim for reimbursement at present is KRW 12,312,988, including final damages, and the sum of the Defendant’s claim for reimbursement due to the occurrence of KRW 183,734,175.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 183,734,175 won and 171,421,187 won among them, 15% per annum from June 26, 2008 to August 25, 2008, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment. As long as the lawsuit in this case was instituted for the extension of the extinctive prescription period of the claim established by the preceding payment order, there is a benefit of protecting rights as a lawsuit for the interruption of extinctive prescription.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.

유사 판례

-서울동부지방법원 2020.05.26 2019가단132811

-부산지방법원서부지원 2020.01.14 2019가단5374

-부산지방법원동부지원 2017.05.02 2016가단215389

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.11.29 2018가단5187106

-부산지방법원 2020.02.07 2019나53921