logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2021.03.30 2020가단346758
대여금
Text

Defendant B pays to the Plaintiff KRW 205,980,00, and Defendant C pays KRW 151,200,000, respectively. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants.

Reasons

Attached Form

The facts constituting the grounds for the application (Provided, That “creditor” shall be deemed “Plaintiff” and “debtor” shall be deemed “Defendant”.

The payment order was finally determined for the joint defendant D Co., Ltd.

Defendant B is jointly and severally liable to pay KRW 205,980,000 in total amount of each guarantee limit (i.e., KRW 30,200,780,000 in total) to D Co., Ltd. and the Plaintiff, and Defendant C is jointly and severally liable to pay KRW 151,20,200,00 in total amount of each guarantee limit, barring any special circumstance.

As to this, the Defendants asserted to the effect that the warranty period of Article 7(1) of the Special Act on the Protection of Suretys has expired, and thus, the Defendants’ joint and several liability has expired. However, barring any special circumstance, the term “guarantee period” under Article 7(1) of the Special Act on the Protection of Suretys is appropriate to interpret that the period of the principal obligation to which the guarantor is responsible for the guarantor’s liability is the period of the occurrence of the guaranteed obligation, and cannot be deemed to mean the duration of the guaranteed obligation (see Supreme Court Decision 2018Da4231, Jul. 23, 2020). Thus, the warranty period of three-year under Article 7(1) of the Special Act on the Protection of Suretys has expired.

The Defendants’ joint and several liability has ceased to exist.

It cannot be said (in addition, in the case of Defendant B, as the representative director of D Co., Ltd. who is the principal debt, and is excluded from the scope of the guarantor under Article 2 subparagraph 1(b) of the Special Act on the Protection of Surety, and thus, it cannot be subject to the above Act. Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion cannot be accepted.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is justified, and all of them are accepted, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow