logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.08.21 2018가단5020395
보증채무금
Text

1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) KRW 43,439,406 and KRW 27,000 among them shall be from December 1, 2017 to the date of full payment.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 25, 2008, the Plaintiff concluded two loan transaction agreements with each of the loans necessary for the payment of the intermediate payment of KRW 27,000,000 (the first loan period of KRW 2 years) to C, newly constructed in Jung-gu, Seoul, for sale in lots.

B. Around March 2008, the Defendant, as an agent for the implementation of the B commercial rental business, concluded a joint and several guarantee agreement with the Plaintiff by setting the amount equivalent to 130% of the individual principal debt amount (the Defendant’s total guarantee amount is 58.5 billion won) between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff.

C. C even though the loan maturity (which was extended on April 20, 2014) was extended, C failed to repay the loan. As of November 30, 2017, the sum of the principal and interest of the loan as of November 30, 2017 is KRW 43,439,406, respectively (each agreement of KRW 27,00,000,000 each as principal interest of KRW 41,88,135, respectively). The overdue interest rate applicable to each of the instant loans is KRW 15% per annum.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 to 23, Evidence Nos. 1 to 1 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the Defendant is jointly and severally liable with C to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum, which is the annual interest rate of 15%, from December 1, 2017 to the date of full payment, for each of the KRW 43,439,406 and each of the principal amount of KRW 27,00,000,000, respectively, within the limit of 35,100,000 (each of KRW 27,000,000 x 130%), barring special circumstances.

B. Defendant’s assertion 1) The Defendant asserts that the part payment loan claim against C against the Plaintiff is lacking in identity with the claim for “family loan” as stipulated in the instant loan transaction agreement, and the written business agreement (the joint guarantor as stipulated in the evidence No. 1 is an individual representative director of the Defendant, and the Defendant is the defendant.

arrow