logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산고등법원 2018.06.20 2018나51464
보증채무금
Text

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

The defendants are the defendants.

Reasons

1. The corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance shall be quoted pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act of basic facts.

2. According to the facts found in the establishment of the obligation to pay the deposit, the Defendants guaranteed the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay the instant administrative service fee pursuant to the instant undertaking of the D Regional Housing Association. Thus, the Defendants each of the instant administrative service fee of KRW 412.5 million to the Plaintiff (i.e., KRW 825 million to the Plaintiff (i.e., the instant administrative service fee of KRW 1.25 million x 1/2) and its maturity after the date of repayment. As a result, the Plaintiff’s delivery of the copy of the complaint sought by the Plaintiff from September 14, 2017 to June 20, 2018, constitutes a simple guarantee that constitutes a relationship between the Defendants by excluding the provisions of the Civil Act from September 14, 2017 to June 20, 2018. Accordingly, the damages for delay under the Civil Act other than the Commercial Act shall be applied

The obligation to pay damages for delay calculated by 5% per annum from June 21, 2018 to the date of full payment.

3. Determination as to the defendants' defense

A. The assertion: (a) According to Article 17(5)3 of the Enforcement Rule of the former Housing Act and Article 23(1)3 of the Rules of the D Regional Housing Association, where a “contract that will be borne by members, other than the matters stipulated in the budget,” is concluded, it shall undergo a resolution of ratification by the general meeting of the association members. The instant agency contract concluded without going through such procedures is null and void because it violates the Housing Act, which is a mandatory provision, or violates the Defendants’ delegation of authority.

② Even if the instant agency contract is valid, the D Regional Housing Association already paid to the Plaintiff the administrative service cost in excess of the administrative service cost for the actual service duties performed by the Plaintiff.

③ The Plaintiff owes its obligations to the D Regional Housing Association, the primary debtor of the instant administrative service costs, in accordance with the instant undertaking.

arrow