beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 100,000,000 as well as 20% per annum from July 17, 2014 to the day of full payment.
Reasons
1. The plaintiff asserts to the effect that the defendant jointly and severally guaranteed C's loan obligations against the plaintiff.
However, according to the purport of Gap evidence No. 1 and the whole pleadings, the plaintiff lent KRW 100 million to C on July 2, 2013 by setting the due date for repayment until August 2, 2013, and at that time the defendant guaranteed the plaintiff's above loan obligations to C. Thus, it is insufficient to recognize the fact that the defendant guaranteed the defendant's joint and several debt obligations, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.
However, the plaintiff's assertion seems to include the purport that the defendant should be responsible for the guarantee, so the defendant is liable to pay the amount of 100 million won guaranteed to the plaintiff and damages for delay, barring special circumstances.
2. Determination as to the defendant's assertion
A. The defendant is a simple guarantor, and thus, the defendant must file a lawsuit against the defendant after the plaintiff became impossible to execute the lawsuit, even though the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against C because he/she becomes a simple guarantor.
In the defense of highest search, the surety shall prove the fact that the principal obligor has the ability to perform and that it is easy to execute it.
(Article 437 of the Civil Act). However, according to the statement in Eul evidence No. 1, it is recognized that the principal debtor C owns 22,215 square meters of D forest land, E, 43,240 square meters of forest land, F forest land 24,893 square meters of forest land in Gyeongnam-gun, Gyeongnam-gun. However, according to each of the above evidence and the purport of the whole pleadings, the registration of creation of a mortgage over the above forest land has been completed with a total of 400 million cost volume, and the seizure of the above forest land has been completed. Thus, it is insufficient to deem that the above fact alone proves that C has the ability to repay and its execution is easy, and the defendant proves the market value, etc. of real estate held by C on the fifth date for pleading.