양수금
1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim against the defendant is dismissed.
2...
1. Basic facts
A. On August 30, 2002, Samsung Capital Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Tho Capital”) lent KRW 5,120,000 (hereinafter “instant loan”) to the Defendant Lho Capital at an annual interest rate of 19%.
(2) The instant loan principal and interest claim was transferred to the Plaintiff via the Korea Asset Management Corporation.
B. On January 12, 2006, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit seeking the payment of the instant loan, etc. against A and the Defendant.
In the first instance trial, A and the defendant could not serve a duplicate of the complaint, and the procedure was carried out by public notice.
The judgment of the first instance court citing the plaintiff's claim is sentenced to August 11, 2006, and the same year.
9.7. formally finalized
(2) On August 7, 2015, the Defendant filed an appeal for subsequent completion.
Among them, the records of the first instance court of this case were destroyed after the preservation period expires.
2. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant guaranteed A's debt of the loan of this case.
The Defendant is jointly and severally liable with A to pay the principal and interest of the instant loan amounting to KRW 7,862,443 (=the remaining principal amounting to KRW 4,855,417) as of March 31, 2005, interest and delay damages as of KRW 3,007,026) and delay damages.
B. According to the credit card theory agreement (Evidence No. 4), the name of the defendant is written in the column for joint and several sureties for the debt of the instant loan, and the defendant is written in the next page of the agreement that "the guarantor wants to contact and check by the guarantor. I wish to substitute for the borrower (A) with the relationship in the local area."
According to the above facts, the person who signed the certificate No. 4 as a joint and several surety is not the defendant but A.
The entries of the above phrase alone are insufficient to recognize that A has permitted the Defendant to sign the Defendant as a joint and several surety on his/her behalf, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
No. 4 shall apply to the certificate of title 4.