beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s loans, etc. against the Plaintiff on March 16, 2015 (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2015 tea10232).
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On October 30, 2009, new mutual savings bank approved that the basic terms and conditions of credit transaction between B and B apply, and specified B as 11% per annum and 25% per annum interest rate per delay interest rate (hereinafter “instant loan”).
B. On the same day, in order to secure B’s obligation arising from the instant loan, the Plaintiff entered into a collateral security contract (hereinafter “instant collateral security contract”) with a new mutual savings bank, setting the guarantee limit amount of KRW 1,092,00,000,000,000, and the Plaintiff and B jointly owned each of 1/2 shares, and the Plaintiff and B entered into a collateral security contract with the new mutual savings bank (hereinafter “instant collateral security contract”) with the maximum debt amount of KRW 1,09,200,000 with respect to the 801 of Gangseo-gu, Seoul Metropolitan Government No. 801 (hereinafter “instant real estate”). At that time, the Plaintiff established a collateral security contract (hereinafter “instant collateral security contract”) under the said contract with the new mutual savings bank.
Article 4(1) of the instant Guarantee Agreement provides that “In the event that a guarantor separately provides, or provides, a security with respect to the same secured obligation to a mutual savings bank, such security or guarantee shall not be modified by this Guarantee Agreement and shall be applied cumulative as separate from the liability for such guarantee under this Agreement, unless otherwise agreed.”
C. Meanwhile, on September 17, 2010, the new mutual savings bank changed its trade name into the new savings bank, and on October 29, 2013, the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2013Hahap161, and the Defendant was appointed as the trustee in bankruptcy.
(hereinafter referred to as the “Bankruptcy Bank”) D, regardless of whether before or after the bankruptcy.
B loses the benefit of time in violation of the loan agreement of this case, and the defendant shall do so.