beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On March 21, 2001, the Defendant entered into a credit guarantee agreement with the Plaintiff on March 21, 2002, under which the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 15,000,000 from the Industrial Bank of Korea the “small and Medium Enterprise Loan” and the term of guarantee was 12,750,000,000, and issued a credit guarantee certificate and provided a credit guarantee (hereinafter “the first guarantee”). Since then, the term of guarantee was changed on March 21, 2004.
B was jointly and severally guaranteed in the guarantee agreement No. 1 above.
B. On March 25, 2002, the Defendant entered into a credit guarantee agreement with the Plaintiff on March 25, 2003, under which the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 20,000,000 from the Industrial Bank of Korea the “small and Medium Enterprise Loan Loan” and the term of guarantee was 16,000,000,000, and issued a credit guarantee certificate and provided credit guarantee (the two guarantee term was changed to March 21, 2004).
C. On February 13, 2004, the Plaintiff lost interest due to overdue interest, the Industrial Bank of Korea requested the Defendant to discharge the guaranteed obligation, and on April 29, 2004, the Defendant subrogated to the Industrial Bank of Korea for payment of the principal and interest amounting to KRW 29,658,307 (No. 13,225,431, No. 16,432,876).
In relation to the subrogated repayment under the guarantee No. 1, the defendant filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff and B against the plaintiff in relation to the subrogated repayment under the guarantee No. 2, against the plaintiff in relation to the subrogated repayment under the guarantee No. 2, and received a favorable judgment against the plaintiff in relation to the interest or delay damages from April 29, 2004 as to the plaintiff 29,701,527 won and the interest or delay damages from April 29, 2004, and from April 29, 2004 as to the plaintiff.
E. On September 10, 2010, the Plaintiff received a decision of immunity on the grounds that the Plaintiff did not constitute a ground for non-permission of immunity as prescribed by Article 564(1) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act in the case of declaration of bankruptcy at the time of 2009, 2824, 2009Hadan2823, and the said decision was rendered on September 2010.