beta
Text
1. The claim of this case is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. There is no dispute over the fact that the defendant agreed on May 15, 2006 to repay the amount of loan equivalent to the claim amount to the plaintiff by August 15, 2006. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the loan amount of KRW 145,60,000 and delay damages to the plaintiff, barring special circumstances.
2. Judgment on the defense
A. The Defendant’s defense, C, and C, by agreement between the Plaintiff, C, and the Defendant, took over the instant loan loan exemption, and thus, the Defendant’s obligation of prohibition of loan exemption
B. The following facts are no dispute between the parties. (A) On January 11, 2006, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement with the Democratic Development Co., Ltd. to delegate the implementation, construction, and sale of the Do and E-Ground-based loan construction (hereinafter “instant construction”) to the Democratic Development Co., Ltd., and to receive KRW 510,00,000 as land price.
B) After the discontinuance of the instant construction, democratic development suspended the instant construction, and as the Defendant’s shortage of construction cost while succeeding to the construction, the Defendant borrowed KRW 145,60,000 from the Plaintiff on May 15, 2006, the due date for repayment of KRW 145,60,000 from the Plaintiff on August 15, 2006. (C) However, when the Defendant ceased the instant construction due to the shortage of funds, the Defendant agreed on December 26, 2006, that “one-person F shall settle the accounts between the land price and the loan (B principal and interest) and the Bank with four-generation interest loans” (hereinafter “instant assumption agreement”), while succeeding to the construction, the Defendant signed the instant agreement as a witness.
2) In light of the legal principles, it is deemed that the assignee is exempt from liability in the assumption of an obligation, or if it is not clear whether the assignee is a counter-insignor (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da36228, Sept. 24, 2002). Whether the assumption of an obligation is overlapping is a matter of interpretation of the intent of the parties indicated in the assumption of an obligation agreement, and in the case of an assumption of an obligation with the burden of exemption, the obligee’s consent is necessarily required.