logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.12.21 2016나48012
구상금
Text

1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The defendant.

Reasons

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The facts of recognition (1) around June 2012, the Defendant obtained a loan of KRW 7,000,000 from the Hyundai Savings Bank Co., Ltd., and the Plaintiff jointly and severally guaranteed the Defendant’s debt.

(2) Around March 2014, the Defendant borrowed KRW 10,000,00 from Escisco Ltd. (hereinafter “No. 1”) and the Plaintiff jointly and severally guaranteed the Defendant’s debt.

(3) The Defendant delayed repayment of the principal and interest of the loan 1 and the second loan 2. The Plaintiff repaid KRW 242,225 on December 23, 2014 to Hyundai Savings Bank Co., Ltd., and KRW 5,400,000 on September 24, 2015. From December 19, 2014 to November 6, 2015, the Plaintiff repaid KRW 9,873,498 to Mascoa Ltd.

[Grounds for recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 to 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above facts of determination, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of subrogated payment of KRW 15,515,723 (=242,225 + KRW 5,400,00 + KRW 9,873,498) and legal interest or delay damages after the date of subrogated, barring any special circumstances.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. In the case of divorce, etc. brought by the Defendant’s assertion against the Plaintiff, conciliation was concluded including the Plaintiff’s payment of KRW 20,000,000 as a division of property. The payment order for the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant for payment of KRW 17,00,00 was finalized.

After that, the Defendant filed a lawsuit of demurrer against the Plaintiff, and in the case of demurrer, the conciliation was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, stating that “The two parties confirm that no obligation exists with respect to each other,” and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for indemnity of this case contradicts the res judicata effect of the conciliation protocol.

(b)where necessary for judicial reconciliation or conciliation.

arrow