beta
Text
1. Defendant B, Defendant C, and Defendant D, jointly and severally, shall be KRW 120 million to the Plaintiff, as well as on June 30, 2010.
Reasons
1. Claim against Defendant B, Defendant C, and Defendant D
(a) Indication of claims: To be as shown in the reasons for the claims;
(b) Judgment by publication: Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act;
2. Claim against Defendant E
A. On May 25, 2010, when Defendant E drafted the No. 247 of the No. 2010 No. 2010, the Plaintiff jointly and severally guaranteed the remainder Defendants’ obligation to pay the loan amount of KRW 120 million and interest thereon, Defendant E sought payment of KRW 50 million and interest thereon against Defendant E.
B. According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 1, as alleged by the plaintiff, it is recognized that defendant Eul guaranteed the remainder of the defendants' loans of KRW 120 million against the plaintiff and the interest payment obligation thereof as the maximum amount of KRW 50 million.
However, the fact that the period of Defendant E’s guarantee obligation is indicated as “two years” is apparent in the record, and even if the meaning of the above “two years” is deemed as “two years from the date of repayment,” the guarantee period is deemed as “two years from the date of payment,” and it is also called “two years from the date of payment” until June 30, 2012 or September 30, 2015 (or from June 6, 2010 to September 40, 2013, the Defendants agreed to jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 3 million from the end of each month and to lose the benefit of time if the Defendants did not perform the said obligation, and thus, it is deemed as the date of loss of benefit of time after July 1, 2010 or from September 30, 2013, which is the date of expiration of the said period of installment payment).
Ultimately, it is reasonable to view that Defendant E’s joint and several surety obligation for the Plaintiff has expired due to the expiration of the guarantee period.
C. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant E is dismissed as it is without merit.