In the overlapping assumption of obligations, the legal relationship between the underwriter's and the original obligation;

In the event of an overlapping or sick assumption of an obligation, whether a joint and several obligation relationship occurs between the obligation to be borne by the underwriter and the obligation to be borne by the principal or not, or whether a joint and several obligation relationship occurs between the obligor and the principal obligation, shall be determined by interpretation of the intent of the parties in each specific case, such as the existence of a subjective relationship

Article 453 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and one other

Seoul District Court (62Na101)

Each appeal by the defendant, etc. against the defendant is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant, etc.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant et al. attorney are as shown in the attached Table.

The grounds of appeal are examined in order.

With respect to No. 1:

In the court of first instance, the plaintiff's personal questioning protocol of the first instance contains the plaintiff's statement that "at that time, the plaintiff was affixed with the seal of the defendant 1, who was affixed with the seal of the defendant 1." However, the plaintiff's statement that the defendant 1, 2, and 3 obtained the certificate of No. 1, 2, and 3 from the defendant in a free atmosphere without coercion with the defendant, etc. is also written, and if the contents of the protocol are the same, the plaintiff's statement is not the purport of expressing the fact of coercion against the defendant, but it can not be concluded that the plaintiff's statement that the defendant 1 stated the above fact as to the defendant, etc., and it is clear that the plaintiff's statement that the defendant 1 stated it as such, and therefore, it is not the fact that the plaintiff's own coercion is acknowledged by the right to inquire of the defendant 1 et al., which corresponds with the defendant 1's defense.

In addition, the testimony of the non-party 1 of the first instance trial witness is made, and the plaintiff and the defendant 1 have written their signatures and affixed their seals on the custody certificate of the evidence No. 1, and on the contrary, the evidence No. 1 is identical to the theory of the lawsuit that the non-party 2 and the defendant 1 have affixed their names and seals, and there is no plaintiff's signature and seal (the evidence No. 3 of the lawsuit is considered to have been wrong). However, the part of the non-party 1's testimony contrary to the above truth is not deemed to have been made due to his negligence or mistake, and it cannot be readily concluded that the witness made a false statement on the sole ground that the part of the non-party 1's testimony contrary to the above truth is not considered to have been made due to his negligence or mistake. It is not permissible to appoint the witness since the whole matters of the court below on the preparation of evidence from an independent point of

Then, in light of the records, the document No. 3 is written in writing that Defendant 1 will be responsible for all responsibility and amount when Defendant 2 escaped. However, when considering the document No. 1 written on the same day as Nonparty 2 and Defendant 1's joint signature, the document No. 37,000 won should be returned to the Plaintiff by May 25, 1960, and it is not written in writing that Defendant 1 will be responsible only when Nonparty 2 escaped, such as the document No. 3, but it also mentioned below according to the result of the witness Non-Party 1 and the plaintiff's personal examination as cited by the court below, and Defendant 1 can be acknowledged as having taken over the damages liability of Nonparty 2 for the purpose of clarifying Defendant 1's warranty liability, and it cannot be argued that the defendant 1 did not have the right of escape, and it cannot be argued that it is sufficiently argued that the defendant 2 did not exercise the right of escape.

With respect to the second ground:

The court below held that the defendant et al. has no obligation to jointly and severally pay 36,00 won to each of the plaintiff's claims that the defendant et al. jointly and severally liable to pay 36,00 won to the defendant et al. If it is obvious that the defendant et al. agreed to pay 36,00 won to the plaintiff for all of the plaintiff's tort committed between the plaintiff and the plaintiff individually. The court below held that the defendant et al. has no obligation to jointly and severally pay 36,00 won to each of the plaintiff. The court below's legal reasoning that the defendant et al. lawfully confirmed by the former right is the defendant et al.'s obligation to pay the same amount as the original obligation to the plaintiff et al. to secure the validity of the defendant et al.'s obligation to pay 36,000 won to the defendant et al. The court below's decision that the defendant et al. did not have a legal relationship with the defendant et al.'s obligation to pay al.

Therefore, the defendant's ground of appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing defendant, etc.

Judges Han Sung-soo (Presiding Judge)