보증채무금
1. The Defendants jointly and severally pay KRW 1,920,000 to the Plaintiff.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants.
3...
1. Basic facts
A. On March 28, 2008, the Plaintiff lent KRW 1.6 billion to Thai Co., Ltd., Ltd., and agreed on the interest rate and delay damages at the rate determined by the Plaintiff. The Defendants jointly and severally paid the debt owed to the Plaintiff by Thai Co., Ltd. within the limit of KRW 1.92 million.
B. After that, Thai Co., Ltd. was dissolved after the rehabilitation, the principal that was not paid to the Plaintiff of Thai Co., Ltd. was KRW 948,859,683 until May 26, 2015, and damages for delay are KRW 1,089,516,717.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 1.920,000,00,000 ( KRW 948,859,683, KRW 1,089, KRW 516,717) out of the outstanding principal and interest of payment to the Plaintiff of Thai-si Co., Ltd.
3. Judgment on the defendants' assertion
A. The Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff recovered all the claims against Thai Co., Ltd. in the rehabilitation proceedings against Thai Co., Ltd., but there is no evidence to acknowledge this.
In addition, even if the plaintiff recovered his claim after the rehabilitation plan was approved in the rehabilitation procedure against Taedo Co., Ltd., the exemption from the obligation of the principal debtor under the rehabilitation plan does not affect the rights of the guarantor (Article 250(2) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act). Therefore, the defendants' assertion is without merit.
B. The Defendants asserted that the instant guaranteed obligation was expired on July 20, 2014, when five years have elapsed since the date when it was decided to commence the rehabilitation procedure on July 21, 2009.
The interruption of prescription, recognized by Article 32 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, in the event rehabilitation procedures have commenced for the principal obligor, shall also become effective on the guaranteed obligation, and such effect shall also be effective.