보증채무금등
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The Plaintiff’s judgment as to the cause of the claim shall be based on the security of a promissory note, the face value of which is KRW 185 million issued by B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co., Ltd.”) and the due date of which is January 16, 2016, set at the due date for repayment of KRW 185 million to Nonparty Co., Ltd. on January 18, 2016 and at the interest rate of KRW 6.9% per annum. The Defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the Defendant’s debt on the Plaintiff at that time, and the Plaintiff received KRW 100 million from Nonparty Co., Ltd. on January 18, 2016. Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the remainder of the loan and delay damages, as a whole, unless there is a dispute between the parties, or in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as stated in the evidence No. 1, No. 1, 2016.
2. As to the defendant's assertion, the defendant asserts that the above amount of KRW 85 million was exempted from the guaranteed obligation, so in full view of the evidence as mentioned above and the purport of the whole pleadings in Eul's evidence Nos. 4 through 7, the plaintiff loaned KRW 185 million to the non-party company as of December 28, 2015, and C also guaranteed the above loan obligation to the non-party company's plaintiff. The plaintiff received repayment of KRW 100 million from the non-party company, and then again prepares a new certificate of borrowing interest rate of KRW 85 million between the non-party company and KRW 85 million and the maturity rate of KRW 6.9% a year with interest rate of KRW 6.9% a year, and the above loan certificate is acknowledged as a joint and several surety. According to the above facts, according to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff newly signed the loan interest rate of KRW 185 million and KRW 105 million a joint and several surety with the non-party company as a joint and several surety.
Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is justified.
3. Conclusion, the plaintiff .