대여금
1. The defendant shall pay 20,800,000 won jointly and severally with B.
2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.
3.Paragraph 1.
1. The Plaintiff’s assertion by the parties is seeking the performance of the Defendant’s joint and several liability obligations with respect to an automobile and construction machinery loan agreement between the Defendant’s spouse B and the bankrupt debtor on October 8, 2012.
On this issue, the defendant is arguing that there is no fact of joint and several sureties at the time of the above loan agreement.
2. The loan agreement of the evidence No. 1 contains the signature and seal of the Defendant’s name in the joint and several sureties column. According to each of the evidence No. 4 and No. 5, the above evidence No. 1’s seal of the joint and several sureties No. 1 can be recognized as having the same facts as that of the Defendant’s seal of the joint and several sureties No. 1’s seal of the Defendant.
As above, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence No. 1, Gap evidence No. 2 and Eul evidence No. 3 as a whole, Eul borrowed 16 million won from the bankrupt debtor on Oct. 8, 2012 under the pretext of automobile and construction machinery loan. In this case, the defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the above debt No. 2080,000, the guarantee limit was 15.9% per annum, the interest rate on the above loan is 25% per annum, and the interest rate on the above loan is 25% per annum, and the interest rate on the loan No. 25% per annum is 25% per annum, and the interest on the loan No. 213, Jan. 21, 2013 under the above loan agreement and the basic terms and conditions on credit transaction by mutual savings bank No. 150,280, interest No. 10,106,825 won per annum, and there is no remainder in the remaining facts.
Therefore, as a joint and several surety, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 20,80,000,000, which is the limit of continuing guarantee among the debt amount B.
3. Therefore, the claim of this case is accepted on the grounds of the conclusion.