logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.08.25 2015나21966
대여금
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 9, 2008, Seoul Mutual Savings Bank (hereinafter “Seoul Mutual Savings Bank”) loaned KRW 20,000,000 (hereinafter “instant loan”) to the Defendant at an annual interest rate of 18%, annual interest rate of 23%, and due date of payment on June 9, 2009.

The Co-Defendant B’s R& C (Death on May 9, 2009) of the first instance trial jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation of the instant loan.

B. Seoul Mutual Savings was declared bankrupt on September 26, 2013 (this Court 2013Hahap139), and the Plaintiff was appointed as bankruptcy trustee.

C. As of March 6, 2014, the principal and interest of the instant loan is KRW 41,181 in total (=interest of KRW 19,99,983 and interest of KRW 21,181,228 in total).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. According to the facts of the determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 41,181,211 of the instant loan and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 23% per annum, which is the agreed delay damages rate, from March 7, 2014 to the date of full payment.

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant asserts that the instant loan should be repaid only on the deceased C’s inherited property, since the Defendant did not recognize the instant loan obligation, but has no ability to repay it.

However, as seen earlier, the defendant is liable to repay the loan of this case as the principal debtor regardless of the ability to repay.

The heir B of the deceased C, a joint guarantor, is limited to the scope of the deceased C's inherited property due to the effect of the inheritance limited approval.

The defendant's argument is without merit.

3. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow