보증채무금
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. Basic facts
A. On October 9, 2010, the Plaintiff lent 60,000 Chinese currency 60,000 to C with interest rate of 3% per month and due date on March 31, 2011. At the time, the Defendant guaranteed C’s above loan obligations against the Plaintiff.
B. From October 9, 2010 to September 201, the Plaintiff received damages for delay from C in accordance with the interest or agreed rate on the said loan.
C. At the time of the closing of argument in the instant case, the basic exchange rate of Madernization is KRW 185.52 per 1st century.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, substantial facts in this court, Gap evidence 1 (including provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The main text of Article 25(1) of the Act on Private International Law provides that a contract shall be governed by the law of which the parties have chosen explicitly or implicitly, and Article 25(3) of the same Act provides that the agreement on the governing law may be subsequently modified. In light of the fact that the plaintiff is seeking the performance of a guaranteed obligation under the premise of the application of the law of the Republic of Korea, and that the defendant does not dispute the governing law, it is reasonable to deem that there was an implied agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant on the governing law of the contract
3. The defendant's judgment on the defense prior to the merits of the defendant is that both the plaintiff, the principal debtor, C and the defendant, the creditor, and the guarantee between the plaintiff and the defendant was made within China. Thus, the plaintiff asserts to the purport that the lawsuit of this case should be brought to the court of China without international jurisdiction, and thus, it is unlawful.
On the other hand, Article 2 (1) of the Private International Act has international jurisdiction in case where a party or a case in dispute is substantially related to the Republic of Korea.
In this case, the court shall conform to the ideology of international jurisdiction allocation in judging the existence of substantial relations.