logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.08.16 2016나75168
대여금
Text

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On October 22, 2015, the Plaintiff, as a credit service provider, loaned KRW 5,000,000 to B at the interest rate of KRW 34.9% per annum, and the due date of repayment on October 22, 2020. In the process, the Defendant entered into a loan transaction agreement under the name of the Defendant for joint and several guarantee within the limit of KRW 6,50,000 (Evidence 3; hereinafter “instant loan transaction agreement”).

B. Around that time, the employee in charge of the Plaintiff called to the Defendant and explained the terms and conditions of the loan and the contents of the joint and several sureties, and confirmed whether or not the intent of the joint and several sureties and the written application of the joint and several sureties contract were written.

C. The debt of the above loan remains at the present principal amount of KRW 5,00,000 and interest and delay damages from December 29, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 3 through 6, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Defendant asserted that the Defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the Plaintiff’s loan obligation within the limit of KRW 6,500,000.

Therefore, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff KRW 5,000,000 and damages for delay within the limit of KRW 6,500,000 as the guaranteed obligation.

B. Determination 1) Article 3(1) of the former Special Act on the Protection of Surety (amended by Act No. 13125, Feb. 3, 2015) provides that “A guarantee shall take effect in the form of a document with the name and seal or signature of the guarantor,” and Article 11 of the same Act stipulates that a contract of this case where the name of the defendant is written and the name of the defendant is written shall not be disadvantageous to the guarantor. (2) There is no evidence to acknowledge that the signature of the defendant is written by the defendant, and there is no other document with the name and seal or signature of the defendant, and thus a guarantee shall take effect pursuant to Article 3(1) of the same Act.

arrow