logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.09.28 2016나26265
보증채무금
Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Defendant’s KRW 21,120,784 and KRW 5,303,770 among the Plaintiff’s KRW 27 May 27, 2015.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. B obtained a loan from the Plaintiff on August 12, 2013 at the interest rate of 24.5% per annum, 28% per annum, and 36 months from the date the loan was commenced, and the Defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the debt of B.

(hereinafter “instant claim”). (b)

The principal debtor B, the instant claim, filed an application for individual rehabilitation with the Chuncheon District Court 2004Da3435 and repaid the Plaintiff by June 11, 2010, according to the repayment plan, and was granted immunity on August 5, 2010.

C. As of May 26, 2015, the principal amount that the Plaintiff was not repaid is KRW 5,303,770, and interest and delay damages are KRW 15,817,014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 1 to 8, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Article 615(1) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act provides that “The repayment plan becomes effective from the time when the decision to authorize is made: Provided, That any change in the right according to the repayment plan does not arise until the decision to grant immunity becomes final and conclusive.”

Therefore, even if the repayment plan is authorized in the individual rehabilitation procedure, the repayment method and the scope of the estimated repayment amount are suspended or the rights are reduced or exempted.

In addition, when the individual rehabilitation procedure is terminated, such as the termination of the individual rehabilitation procedure and the obligor's immunity are maintained, the extinctive prescription of the principal obligation and the guaranteed obligation which the obligee has suspended from the time of the termination of the individual rehabilitation procedure.

In this case, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff participated in the individual rehabilitation procedure of B, which is the principal debtor, and was repaid the obligation according to the authorized repayment plan.

arrow