(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2017.10.24 2016가단22152

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2017.10.24 2016가단22152

대여금

Text

1. Defendant B shall pay 136,00,000 won to the Plaintiff and 15% per annum from August 7, 2016 to the day of full payment.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 2006, Defendant B sold to the Plaintiff two occasions two shopping district occupancy rights (right to sell in lots) to be constructed in the 68,000,000 won in each of the 68,000,000 won and paid to the Plaintiff KRW 136,00,000 as the price.

B. At the time of the above sale, Defendant B agreed to pay the Plaintiff the balance calculated by deducting the amount of farmer’s compensation from the said paid money if the right to occupy the commercial building did not arise.

C. The above shopping mall was not established.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, the result of examination of partial parties against defendant B, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts stated in Paragraph 1, Defendant B is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 136,00,000 as well as damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from August 7, 2016 (the day following the day on which the complaint was served to Defendant B) to the day of full payment, pursuant to the agreement on November 2006.

The plaintiff asserts that since the defendant C guaranteed the above obligation of the defendant C on November 2006, the plaintiff is jointly and severally liable with the defendant B.

Therefore, we examine whether Defendant C guaranteed the Plaintiff’s assertion.

According to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (each loan certificate), each of the above loan certificates may be recognized as having been written and signed by defendant C as a witness and a guarantor (contestor). However, in light of the fact that if defendant C made the above entries with the intent of guarantee, there is no reason to be stated as a separate witness, and that the plaintiff did not demand any performance against the defendant C for about nine and a half years since November 2006 before the plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case, the above evidence alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the defendant C guaranteed the above loan, and there is no other evidence to prove the fact that the defendant C guaranteed the contract.

Therefore, the plaintiff's defendant C.

참조조문

-소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법

유사 판례

-서울남부지방법원 2016.08.11 2015가단21015

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.05.17 2016가단113694

-인천지방법원 2016.02.18 2015가합4357

-서울동부지방법원 2018.11.15 2018가단123544

-의정부지방법원 2016.02.15 2015고단2107