logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원홍성지원 2014.04.17 2013가합857
구상금
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 September 9, 2002, the Defendant concluded a lease agreement between C and Chungcheongnam-Nam to lease the wedding hall building located in Chungcheong D with a deposit amount of KRW 600 million.

B. On September 18, 2002, E Co., Ltd. (registration number F, registration number G Co., Ltd., “G Co., Ltd.,” and “Co., Ltd. H,” hereinafter “former E”) obtained a loan of KRW 200 million from one bank (hereinafter “instant loan”), and on the same day, the Defendant borrowed the above KRW 200 million from the former E and paid it to C as part of the above lease deposit.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 through 6 (including branch numbers for those with a satisfy number), Gap evidence 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff agreed on September 18, 2002 that if the Defendant did not repay KRW 200 million borrowed from the former E, the Plaintiff shall be liable for the Defendant’s debt of KRW 200 million to the former E (joint guarantee). 2) On September 30, 2003, the Plaintiff paid KRW 150 million to E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “New E”) borrowed from one bank in the form of provisional payment from the said company and KRW 50 million borrowed from the said company in the form of provisional payment.

3. Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 200 million and damages for delay.

B. In light of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence 4, 5, Gap evidence 6-1, 2, and 9, the court below found that 200 million won of the loan of this case to Han Bank was repaid on September 30, 2003, 150 million won out of the above repayment amount was appropriated to the money borrowed from Han Bank on the same day, and that the plaintiff was the representative director of the new E at the time.

However, the representative director shall be the plaintiff's 150 million won who received a loan from a new E-bank.

arrow