beta
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. Basic facts
A. On April 27, 2009, the Plaintiff entered into a loan transaction agreement providing loans of KRW 27,000,000 as loans necessary for the payment of the pre-sale deposit to B, who are newly built in Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C.
B. Around March 2008, the Defendant, as an agent for the execution of D 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. B even though the maturity date of the loan (which was extended on April 20, 2015) was extended, B failed to repay the loan, and on March 30, 2017, the sum of the principal and interest of the loan as of March 30, 2017 is KRW 34,945,869 (=the principal interest of KRW 27,00,000,000, interest rate of KRW 3,837,844, interest rate of KRW 4,108,025). The overdue interest rate applicable to the loan of this case is 15% per annum.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 18, purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of claim, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is jointly and severally obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 35,100,000 won (=27,000,000 won x 130%) within the limit of 34,945,869 won and the principal amount of KRW 27,00,000 from March 31, 2017, which is the day following the date of calculating interest, to the day of full payment, delay damages calculated by the rate of 15% per annum, which is the overdue interest rate of 35,10,000 won, to the day of full payment.
B. The defendant's assertion 1) The defendant asserts that, since the loan transaction agreement (No. A. 1) states the loan item as "the loan of general accounts", the part payment loan claim against B is lacking in identity with the part payment loan claim against B.
However, the loan is classified and stated according to the plaintiff's internal rules, and this case.