logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2016.06.01 2015가단239606
보증채무금
Text

1. As to KRW 68,750,000 and KRW 50,000 among them, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the year from February 12, 2012 to July 14, 2014.

Reasons

1. In determining the cause of the claim, around October 2009, the Plaintiff loaned interest of KRW 50 million to Nonparty C at interest rate of KRW 1.1 million (26.4% per annum on a yearly conversion into interest rate; KRW 10,000 per annum on November 10, 2010), the Defendant guaranteed the repayment obligation; the Nonparty (the Nonparty during the current bankruptcy and exemption procedure) was merely to repay KRW 12,041,10 in total to the Plaintiff by February 11, 2012 as interest rate; the fact that there was no dispute between the parties, or that there was no interest rate of KRW 18.75 million on the calculation basis of the above date, and that the purport of the entire statement in evidence A1 through 4 appears to be the purport of each pleading.

According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the principal and interest of KRW 68.75 million ( KRW 18.75 million) and the principal of KRW 50 million among them as the guarantor's status, the above annual interest rate of KRW 26.4% from February 12, 2012, which is the day immediately following the above basic date until July 14, 2014, which is the day immediately preceding the amendment date of the maximum interest rate of the Interest Limitation Act, and the above annual interest rate of KRW 26.4% from the following day to December 11, 2015, which is the day of delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case, and the annual interest rate of KRW 25% from the next day to the day of full payment, which is 15% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, and the grounds for the defendant's assertion, such as the addition of rehabilitation creditors related to rehabilitation procedures, do not constitute legal defense that can block the claim for performance of the above obligation at

2. If so, the plaintiff's claim is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow