대여금
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) each of the acts No. 10 and No. 18 of the second judgment of the court of first instance (hereinafter “No. 7, 2012”) shall be deemed to be “ September 7, 2009”; and (b) the Plaintiff’s assertion in the trial is as stated in the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the following judgments to the matters alleged in the court of first instance; (c) thus, it shall be cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the
A. On September 30, 201, and October 21, 201 of the same year, the Defendant paid KRW 10 million to the Plaintiff, respectively. This is the Defendant’s intent to maintain his/her guarantee obligation and paid interest as the guarantor of the instant loan. The primary debtor C paid to the Plaintiff KRW 10 million on May 30, 201, and the same year.
6. 9,500,000 won;
8.23.3,500,000 won;
9. The payment of 7,00,000 won as interest was made individually, and it shall be deemed as the waiver of the prescription interest.
(b).
Judgment
1) We examine the following facts: (a) the waiver of the prescription interest by the principal obligor does not extend to the guarantor (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 89Meu114, Jan. 29, 191; (b) Meanwhile, according to the evidence No. 2 No. 20, Sep. 30, 2011; and (c) on October 21, 201 of the same year, the Defendant remitted each of KRW 10 million to the Plaintiff’s savings account in the Plaintiff’s IB bank account. However, the burden of proving that the Defendant paid the said money by the discharge of the guaranteed obligation under the instant loan certificate is insufficient to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s assertion; and (c) there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise. In addition, according to the evidence No. 7, according to the statement No. 7, “J and K L company” as the client each deposit in the name of the client. < Amended by Act No. 11406, May 30, 2012>
6. Since it is recognized that KRW 9,500,000 was deposited into the Plaintiff’s account, it is insufficient to recognize that C paid the interest as interest on the instant loan obligation. There is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise. The Plaintiff is a debt repayment contract with the Plaintiff.