logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2019.05.31 2018가단139187
대여금
Text

1. The Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 191,804,707, and KRW 150,000 among them, with full payment from July 2, 2018.

Reasons

1. Chief;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) On June 26, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a loan agreement with Defendant C Co., Ltd. to apply the interest rate of KRW 150,000,000, repayment period of KRW 3 years, interest rate of KRW 4.1%, interest rate of overdue interest rate of KRW 18% per annum, and rate of interest changed (current 7.0%) in accordance with the terms and conditions of transaction at the time of changes in the bank interest rate (hereinafter “instant

(2) The Defendant concluded a joint and several guarantee contract with the Plaintiff and the Defendant to jointly pay the instant loan obligation with the Defendant C. However, the Defendant C lost the benefit of July 27, 2016, and as of July 2, 2018, the Defendant C bears the obligation to pay the principal amount of KRW 150,000,000,000, and the attempted interest of KRW 40,164,981, and overdue interest of KRW 1,639,726.

3) Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 191,804,707 (=150,000,000 won KRW 40,164,981 won KRW 1,639,726) and the amount of KRW 150,000,000 per annum under the agreed rate of KRW 7.0% per annum from July 2, 2018 to the date of full payment. (B) The Defendant Co., Ltd received the payment from the Plaintiff of KRW 840,00,000 on June 4, 2013; and (460,00,000,000,000 from November 20, 2014; and (16,150,000,000 from May 16, 2015, the Plaintiff received all of the aforementioned loans from the Plaintiff in the auction of the principal and interest of the real estate.

2. According to the Plaintiff’s evidence No. 3, the existence of the Plaintiff’s loan claim can be acknowledged.

On the other hand, according to the Defendant’s statement on the Defendant’s claim for reimbursement of KRW 850,924,720, which the Plaintiff received in the case of auction of real estate E, as claimed by the Defendant, can only be seen as having partially satisfied the Plaintiff’s obligation of KRW 840,00,000 on June 4, 2013 with the principal and interest of KRW 840,00,00.

Therefore, the defendant's argument that the debt of this case was repaid cannot be accepted.

3. It is so ordered that the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning.

arrow