보증금청구
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which cited the judgment, is the same as the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the additional determination as provided in paragraph (2).
The summary of the defendant's argument for further determination was well aware that the plaintiff had known the financial situation of the principal debtor C, thereby deceiving the defendant as to the ability to repay the principal debtor, and thereby, the defendant entered into the joint and several guarantee contract in this case by misleading the principal debtor's ability to repay, and the repayment ability of the principal debtor constitutes an
On May 29, 2018, the defendant revoked the above joint and several liability contract due to the plaintiff's expression of intent due to deception or the defendant's expression of intent due to the defendant's mistake, and thus, the defendant is not liable to the joint and several liability
On the other hand, the defendant argues that the plaintiff's deception and the defendant's mistake are as follows.
In other words, the plaintiff and C, who were to fully bear the existing debt to the defendant, shall lend KRW 300 million to C on October 28, 2016, and shall promptly repay some of KRW 200 million to the defendant and have the defendant jointly and severally guarantee the new loan KRW 300 million when he/she immediately pays the existing debt amounting to KRW 200 million on the due date.
Judgment
First of all, with respect to the fact that the plaintiff deceivings the defendant with respect to C's ability to repay, the joint and several liability contract was concluded effectively until this court, and the principal obligation was extinguished by the assignment of the claim in this case in lieu
In light of the fact that the joint and several liability was exempted or the testimony, etc. of the witness E of the court of first instance, it is not sufficient to recognize the only entry of the evidence No. 8, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
Furthermore, as stipulated in Article 109 of the Civil Code, if there is an error in declaration of intention, it is erroneous that there was no fact at the time of the juristic act.