beta
Text
1. The part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid under the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked.
The defendant.
Reasons
1. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the following facts: Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 4, 4-1 to 7-1, 10-2, and 2 of the evidence Nos. 1 to 4, 4-1, 10-2 of the evidence No. 1 to 4, and the purport of each of the testimony No. 4, E, F, and G.
(1) On October 20, 200, the Defendant’s mother C borrowed on the Plaintiff’s introduction KRW 25 million from F, the Plaintiff’s Republic of Korea, KRW 30 million from the Plaintiff’s Republic of Korea, KRW 30 million from the Plaintiff’s East E, KRW 30 million from the Plaintiff’s Republic of Korea, and KRW 30 million from H, the Plaintiff’s Republic of Korea, KRW 30 million from the Plaintiff’s Republic of Korea, as the Plaintiff’s seat, respectively.
(2) Since September 2002, C did not pay interest on each of the above loans, and since September 2002, the Plaintiff paid interest to creditors in subrogation of C.
(3) On December 16, 2003, C and the Plaintiff subrogated for interest of KRW 80,000,000 in total to the obligees, including the interest already paid by the Plaintiff on behalf of the Plaintiff, and C agreed to pay the Plaintiff KRW 80,00,000 to the Plaintiff by December 16, 2004 (hereinafter the above agreement is the instant agreement, and the Plaintiff’s claim based thereon is the instant claim) and the Defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the above obligation against the Plaintiff.
(4) During the period from September 25, 2002 to November 9, 2004, the Plaintiff paid KRW 17 million to D as interest on each of the above loans, KRW 30 million to E, KRW 16 million to F, and KRW 17 million to G.
B. According to the above facts of recognition, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant, a joint guarantor of C, is one of the 80,000,000 won and the following day after the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case sought by the Plaintiff after the said contract was performed, and barring any special circumstance, 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from January 28, 2014 to September 9, 2015, which is the date of this decision, deemed reasonable to dispute the existence and scope of the Defendant’s obligation.