Text
1. The defendants' appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation as to this case is as follows, except where the Defendants added the following judgments as to the matters alleged in the trial at the court of first instance, and thus, this is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Additional matters to be determined;
A. The Defendants asserted that, even though the mutual aid and mutual aid did not perform any construction during the construction period as stipulated in the payment guarantee agreement, the Plaintiff paid the construction cost under the mutual aid and mutual aid without agreement with the Defendants, and that, as the Plaintiff did not actually lend money to the Defendant A, the validity of the monetary loan agreement becomes null and void, the Plaintiff’s claim cannot be complied with.
B. According to the evidence evidence Nos. 1 and 5, the Plaintiff prepared and issued a written confirmation of the payment guarantee under the mutual aid and mutual aid and the construction period is determined from November 7, 2013 to November 18, 2013, and “the confirmation that the remaining quantity is the payment guarantee until November 30, 2013,” and the fact that C’s completion date was submitted on November 6, 2013, the said construction period is recognized.
However, the above facts and the following facts acknowledged by the above evidence, namely, the Plaintiff’s written confirmation of the payment guarantee, was delayed due to Defendant A’s failure to pay the subcontract price for the newly constructed construction work under the Dongyang Mutual Assistance, and even up to now Defendant A still remains the subcontract price to be paid under the Dongyang Mutual Assistance, and the payment guarantee is guaranteed until November 30, 2013 in the certificate of payment guarantee.
“The content appears to have set the deadline for payment in the sense that the Plaintiff would pay the unpaid construction cost of KRW 22,00,000 until the above date of the mutual aid and assistance, and it does not seem to have set the period of payment guarantee, as argued by the Defendants, and the completion date was submitted.