(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.06.22 2017가단521368

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.06.22 2017가단521368

보증채무금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. According to the overall purport of the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as to the cause of the claim and the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff: (a) on August 13, 2009, lent KRW 50 million to C with interest rate of KRW 1,200,000 per month (hereinafter “the instant loan”); and (b) at the time, the Defendant guaranteed the above loan obligation of KRW C.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant, a guarantor of the instant loan obligation, is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the agreed interest or delay damages at the rate of KRW 140,00,000 (= KRW 90,000,000 ( KRW 1,200,000) from March 13, 2011 to May 12, 201), and from May 13, 2017 to the date of full payment ( KRW 1,200,000).

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. The Defendant’s defense to the effect that the Defendant’s liability to guarantee was extinguished on February 13, 2010 after six months from the date of the loan, since the term of the liability to guarantee was set for six months as stated in the instant loan certificate.

According to Gap evidence No. 1, it can be acknowledged that the loan of this case stated "six months" in the loan certificate prepared by the plaintiff, C, and defendant, but it is reasonable to deem that the period for repayment of the loan of this case has been fixed, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the above period is set at the duration of guarantee liability, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

B. Meanwhile, the Defendant asserted to the effect that the Plaintiff’s instant loan claim against C had expired from February 201 to May 5, 201 with commercial claim, and that the Plaintiff’s deposit claim against the Defendant also expired depending on the nature of the guaranteed obligation as well as the subsidiary nature of the guaranteed obligation.

Article 47 (1) of the Commercial Act provides that "any act performed by a merchant for business purposes shall be deemed a commercial activity."

참조조문

-상법 제47조 제1항

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2017.07.04 2016가단539973

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.01.08 2019가합537212

-수원지방법원성남지원 2017.09.13 2017가단207146

-부산지방법원 2021.03.30 2020가단346758