청구이의
1. The Defendant’s notary public against the Plaintiff is an executory deed No. 213, 2012, No. 2012.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On July 16, 2012, the Plaintiff, C, and RD (hereinafter “the deceased”) drafted a notarial deed stating that “If a notary public fails to repay the principal and interest of the above loan by the due date, the amount of KRW 37,480,00 from the Deceased on July 16, 2012 shall be 12% per annum of the due date for arrears on September 30, 2012; the amount of arrears on September 30, 2012, the Plaintiff, the joint and several liability ceiling of KRW 37,480,00, and the period of the joint and several liability obligation of KRW 37,480,00, and the period of the said debt shall be December 30, 2012, a notary public shall recognize compulsory execution (hereinafter “notarial deed”).
B. After the completion of the Notarial Deed, the Deceased died, and the Defendant inherited the rights of the Deceased and C based on the Notarial Deed as the District Court Decision 2012Ra1618.
C. Since then, the Defendant requested a collection order for the seizure and collection of the Promissory Notes in the name of debt, which shall be KRW 37,480,00, the amount of which is KRW 37,480,00, the Plaintiff and the third debtor, No. Hyup Bank Co., Ltd., and three financial institutions, respectively, and received the seizure and collection order of the Claim No. 2014, Jul. 3, 2014.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap Nos. 1, 2, 9, Eul's evidence No. 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The plaintiff asserts that the guarantee obligation of the plaintiff shall be extinguished upon the lapse of the relevant period, as long as the period of guarantee obligation specified in the Promissory Notes in this case.
In this regard, the defendant asserts that, as long as the principal obligation incurred during the period of the guaranteed obligation under the Promissory Notes of this case is not repaid, the plaintiff's guaranteed obligation still exists regardless of the period
3. The judgment is based on the following circumstances, which can be recognized based on the above facts, namely, that the Plaintiff’s joint and several liability guarantee is to guarantee C’s monetary obligation for which the Plaintiff’s joint and several liability became final, and the duration of the guaranteed obligation is distinguished from the discharge period of the principal obligation, and it is much longer long-term than the due date