beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff:
A. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the extent of KRW 180,000,000 and KRW 10,030,881.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments in the statement in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 5, the facts in the annexed sheet Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4 (hereinafter "loan Nos. 1, 3, and 4 of this case") are acknowledged to have been jointly and severally guaranteed each of the loans Nos. 1, 2, and 4 of this case within the limit of KRW 180,000,000, KRW 96,000,000, KRW 24,000,000 per annum.
B. Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendants are obligated to pay the principal and interest of the loans to the Plaintiff within the scope of the limit of the guarantee amount.
(A) The Plaintiff claimed the total amount of principal and interest of loans Nos. 1, 2, and 4 of this case against Defendant B within the scope of the total amount of the above guarantee limit. The Plaintiff received the Plaintiff’s claim as to Defendant B’s assertion on February 2, 198 only within the scope of each guarantee limit.
A. Defendant B asserted to the effect that the claim for loans Nos. 1, 2, and 4 of the instant case is repaid in the Seoul Rehabilitation Court 2014da178210, but the said individual rehabilitation procedure was abolished on June 20, 2018, and in full view of the overall purport of the pleading in the list of individual rehabilitation creditors set out in the above individual rehabilitation procedure No. 1, the facts that the claim for loans Nos. 1, 2, and 4 of the instant case is not indicated in the list of individual rehabilitation creditors set out in the above individual rehabilitation procedure, can be acknowledged. Accordingly, Defendant B’s above assertion is rejected.
B. Defendant B asserts to the effect that part of the sales proceeds of the Gangdong-gu Seoul E Apartment 103 Dong 1207 was distributed to the Plaintiff during the auction procedure of real estate auction, Defendant B asserted that part of each of the loans of this case was extinguished by repayment.
In full view of the overall purport of the arguments in the statements No. 6, No. 6, and No. 2, the surety F.