beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On January 29, 2002, C, the Plaintiff, as wife, agreed to pay KRW 50,000,000 out of KRW 110,00,000 borrowed by the wife, was prepared and delivered a written statement of performance (Evidence A No. 1-1, hereinafter “each of the instant statements”) as follows, and the Defendant jointly and severally guaranteed C’s obligation.
The above amounts shall be the sum payable by C out of the daily amount of KRW 50,000,000,000 which D borrowed. Of the above amounts, this KRW 1,000,000,000 shall be repaid in the form in which this letter of performance was drawn up, and shall be repaid in the credit card service of C by February 6, 2002, and shall be promised to be repaid by the credit card service of C by February 6, 2002, and the remaining KRW 50,000,000 shall be repaid by the retirement pay of C by April 207.
(hereinafter omitted)
B. C paid to the Plaintiff KRW 20,000,000 on the day on which the instant written statement was prepared, and KRW 10,000,000 on February 6, 2002.
C. On August 22, 2007, the Plaintiff received KRW 20,000,00 from the Boan Market through compulsory execution against C’s wage account.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 5 (including branch numbers, hereinafter the same) and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion C took over KRW 90,000,000, out of D’s loan obligations, around December 2001, and written a written statement of this case as to KRW 50,000,000 remaining after repayment of KRW 40,000.
However, C paid only KRW 10,00,000 among the obligations under the instant notes, and paid KRW 22,530,660 on the remaining 40,000,000 upon the individual rehabilitation decision, but did not pay KRW 17,469,340 on the grounds that the Defendant still bears the joint and several liability for the balance of the said obligations.
B. According to the overall purport of the statements and arguments as to Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the following facts can be acknowledged.
1. On or around December 2001, the Plaintiff between C and C is as follows: “The KRW 50 million out of the KRW 90 million borrowed by D”.