logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.06.14 2018가단5040313
대여금등
Text

1. The defendant shall be jointly and severally with the plaintiff as to KRW 56,375,125 within the limit of KRW 60,00,000 and KRW 49,00 among them.

Reasons

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of arguments as to evidence Nos. 1-1 through 4 and evidence Nos. 2-1 through 4, the Korea Exchange Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) concluded a credit transaction agreement with B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “B”) on May 19, 2015, setting the credit amount as KRW 100 million with the Plaintiff on May 19, 2015, and entered into an additional credit transaction agreement by changing the agreed amount to May 19, 2017, with the agreed amount as KRW 50,000,000, and the agreed period as of May 19, 2017. The Defendant guaranteed the Plaintiff’s loan obligation to the Plaintiff within the limit of KRW 60,000,000,000,000,0000,000 per annum, and the Defendant may recognize the loan interest rate of KRW 746,706,706,706,796,74,796,746,7,200.

2. According to the above facts, the defendant is jointly and severally liable with B to pay 56,375,125 won (49,967,408 won +6,407,717 won) and damages for delay calculated by the rate of 15% per annum, which is the agreed damages for delay, from October 27, 2017 to the date of full payment.

3. As to this, the defendant asserts to the effect that the plaintiff's claim of this case of this case of this case is unjustifiable in light of the fact that the defendant belongs to C and the plaintiff neglected to confirm the financial status of B, which is the principal debtor, and forced the plaintiff as the guarantor to repay it.

However, the defendant made the instant probation guarantee by deception.

No evidence exists to find that the claim in this case was unjustifiable, such as the Plaintiff’s failure to verify the financial status of the principal debtor, and thus, the above assertion is rejected.

4. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating Justices.

arrow