logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2017.02.15 2016가단254114
구상금
Text

1. As to KRW 47,697,816 and KRW 10,393,09 among the Plaintiff, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the year from April 26, 2014 to August 31, 2015.

Reasons

1. Each fact in the separate statement on the cause of claim in the judgment of the cause of claim does not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including serial numbers), and all pleadings. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 47,697,816 won (10,393 won £« 36,376,583 won + additional guarantee fee of 800,040 won plus 128,100 won for cancellation of attachment) and the balance of subrogated payment of 10,393,093 won from April 26, 2014 to August 31, 2015, the agreed rate of 12% per annum from the day following the date of subrogation, which is 10,393,093 won per annum from the date of August 31, 2015 until the date when the claim of this case and the application for change of the cause of claim were served to the defendant.

2. On the judgment of the defendant's defense, the defendant received a loan from the foreign exchange bank after being sold in lots B apartments from the non-party Korean land trust, and entered into a housing finance credit guarantee contract with the plaintiff on the defendant's part payment obligation to the foreign exchange bank. The plaintiff did not clearly explain to the defendant that the defendant entered into a guarantee contract for part payment obligation against the defendant's foreign exchange bank. The plaintiff did not provide the pertinent information or data and did not explain the contents thereof. The above housing finance credit guarantee contract in violation of the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act and the Enforcement Decree of the Banking Act is invalid as an unfair

According to each description of Gap's evidence 1-1, Gap's evidence 2-1, and Eul's evidence 2-1 and 2, the defendant concluded a housing finance credit guarantee agreement with a foreign exchange bank entrusted by the plaintiff, and received a copy of the agreement, etc. while concluding a loan agreement with the foreign exchange bank entrusted by the plaintiff.

arrow