logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.10.18 2017가단5164724
대여금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On April 26, 2017, D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) entered into a credit transaction agreement with the Plaintiff on behalf of the Plaintiff to lend KRW 160 million to E in equal installments of the principal and interest for a period of 60 months.

B. The Plaintiff deposited KRW 105,925,00,000, after deducting fees, etc. from the above loans on the same day, as stipulated in the above credit transaction agreement, into the D’s account designated by E, and carried out the loan.

C. However, E delayed repayment of the above principal and interest, thereby losing the benefit of June 30, 2017. Accordingly, as of July 17, 2017, E was liable for the total of KRW 107,61,617,495, including the principal and interest of KRW 104,615,540 and interest of KRW 1,187,214, interest of arrears, interest of KRW 8,791, overdue interest of KRW 5,361, and interest of KRW 1,80,589.

【Non-contentious facts, Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 3 (i.e., evidence Nos. 2 and 3)

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion and the defendant's counterclaim against this, the defendant asserts that the defendant is obligated to pay the above loan within the limit of KRW 53 million, since the defendant jointly and severally guaranteed a specific collateral guarantee to guarantee the debt of E within the limit of KRW 53 million.

On the other hand, the defendant asserts that although the defendant guaranteed the debt of E upon the request of E, it does not actually conclude a guarantee contract with the plaintiff, and that the signature and seal of the letter of guarantee submitted by the plaintiff are forged by the employees of D who are not the defendant, and there is no fact that delegated the guarantee contract or granted the power of attorney to D employees, etc., so the plaintiff cannot respond to the plaintiff's request.

B. Therefore, we examine whether the Defendant guaranteed the above loan obligations.

First, there are evidence evidence No. 1 (No. 1) that corresponds to the fact that the plaintiff guaranteed, but the name and the name of the defendant.

arrow