logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2016.09.01 2015가단23843
대여금
Text

1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 30,000,000 with respect to the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s 2015

1. The interest rate shall be from 27. to the day of full payment;

Reasons

1. On August 27, 2014, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 30,000,000 to Defendant B on the same day (hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case”) with the purport that “The amount of KRW 30,000,000 shall be paid in daily, monthly, and the due date shall be January 26, 2015” (hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case”). The loan certificate of this case shall be signed and issued by Defendant C, respectively, on the same day.

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the Defendants jointly are liable to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 30,000,000 as well as damages for delay calculated by an agreement of 25% per annum from January 27, 2015 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the due date, to the day of full payment.

(A) The Plaintiff is jointly and severally liable to pay the amount to the Plaintiff on the premise that Defendant C was jointly and severally liable to compensate for the said amount. However, even according to the entries in the evidence No. 1, Defendant C does not indicate that Defendant C jointly and severally guaranteed the Defendant B’s obligation, and there is no evidence to prove otherwise that Defendant C jointly and severally guaranteed the Defendant’s obligation beyond a simple guarantee. Therefore, the part of the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants that the Defendants jointly and severally claimed for payment is rejected)

Defendant C’s assertion is not based on the intent to guarantee the principal obligation of Defendant C, but rather on the purport that Defendant C would directly pay KRW 30,000,000 to the Plaintiff out of the total amount to be paid by Defendant C to Defendant B. Therefore, Defendant C’s guarantee obligation is not satisfied.

Where the content of a contract is written in writing between the parties to the contract, which is a disposal document, if the objective meaning of the text is clear, the existence of the expression of intent and that of the text, unless there are special circumstances.

arrow