logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.07.10 2014가합47141
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On May 24, 2010, the Plaintiff’s husband C (hereinafter “C”) who was a joint representative director: (a) was granted from the Defendant a loan for general business operation (individual transaction: credit amount: 200 million won; credit period: from May 25, 2010 to May 25, 2011) and (b) the retail financial general loan [the trading classification: credit amount: 200 million won; credit period: from May 25, 201 to May 25, 201].

(hereinafter referred to as “each of the loans of this case”). B.

On May 24, 2010, the Plaintiff entered into a mortgage agreement with the Defendant regarding E apartment 212, Dong 1704 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) located in the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Gwangjin-gu, and two lots of land (hereinafter “instant apartment”). On May 25, 2010, the Plaintiff established the right to collateral security (hereinafter “instant right to collateral security”) against the Defendant on May 25, 2010.

The above contract to establish a collateral security agreement states that the scope of the secured obligation - the obligor (C)’s general loan for business operation to the obligee (the Defendant) is “any obligation to be incurred at present and in the future due to transactions.”

C. Each of the instant loans extended the credit period on May 26, 201 to May 25, 2012 (hereinafter “the first extension”); ② the credit period on May 25, 2012 to May 24, 2013 (hereinafter “the second extension”); ③ the credit period on May 24, 2013 to November 22, 2013 (hereinafter “the third extension”).

On April 13, 2012, the Financial Services Commission made administrative guidance with the consent of the person who has pledged his/her property to secure his/her property to secure his/her property on the extension of the maturity of the credit. On July 2, 2012, the defendant prepared guidelines for credit business to provide "in lieu of ex post facto notification," such as extension, re-agreement, additional loan, and replacement of the guarantor.

E. The defendant's primary extension shall obtain the plaintiff's consent.

arrow