(영문) 수원지방법원 오산시법원 2018.02.01 2017가단2179



1. The loan case No. 2016Gau5106 against the Defendant’s Plaintiff was dated April 11, 2016.


1. On February 2013, the Defendant asserted that “Around February 2013 lent KRW 18,000,000 to the Plaintiff’s spouse, and thereafter C received a loan certificate as the borrower and the Plaintiff as the guarantor.” The Defendant brought a lawsuit against the Plaintiff and C as the Suwon District Court Decision 2016No5106, Suwon District Court. The said court rendered the instant decision on performance recommendation as indicated in the Disposition on April 11, 2016.”

The decision on performance recommendation was finalized as it is. [The fact that there is no dispute over grounds for recognition, the entries in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.]

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The defendant asserts that the plaintiff is obligated to pay KRW 18,00,000 to the defendant as the plaintiff guaranteed that C borrowed KRW 18,00,000 from the defendant, and therefore, the plaintiff was obligated to pay KRW 18,00,00 to the defendant.

As to this, the plaintiff asserts that since C does not have any obligation to pay the money to the defendant because C did not guarantee the lending of money from the defendant or prepare a loan certificate, compulsory execution based on the execution recommendation decision of this case shall not be permitted.

B. Of the loan certificates prepared in the name of the Plaintiff and C (the loan certificates attached to the Plaintiff’s complaint No. 1, which was the basis for the decision on execution recommendation of the instant case, filed a lawsuit on the merits that served as the basis for the decision on execution recommendation of the instant case), the part in which the Plaintiff prepared the Plaintiff’s name is disputing the establishment of the petition, the materials submitted by the Defendant alone are insufficient to recognize the authenticity,

In addition, the evidence or circumstances presented by the remaining defendant alone are insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff guaranteed the obligation to return loans to the defendant C, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Therefore, since the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to bear the obligation to pay money to the Defendant, it is based on the instant decision of performance recommendation.