beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
Reasons
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the basic facts is as stated in paragraph 1 of the judgment of the court of first instance, and this part is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Claim against Defendant B and C
A. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant C is the principal debtor of the loan as of September 29, 2009, and the defendant B is jointly and severally liable to pay 50,000,000 won and delay damages to the plaintiff as a joint and several surety of the above loan.
As to this, the above Defendants asserted that Defendant C’s existing obligations against the Plaintiff, including the loan money from September 29, 2009, was settled through the sale and purchase of the instant land and building.
B. We examine whether the loan money of September 29, 2009 (hereinafter “the loan money of this case”) was settled through the sales contract of this case as seen earlier (hereinafter “the sales contract of this case”) and whether the loan money of this case was settled between the Plaintiff and the Defendant C with respect to the building and land of this case.
(1) On October 31, 201, N, the Plaintiff’s wife of the previous lawsuit filed a lawsuit against Defendant B seeking payment of KRW 40,000,000 for loans as of April 8, 2010, under the Jeonju District Court’s Gunsan Branch Decision 201Da17347, supra.
In the above lawsuit, Defendant B did not receive KRW 100,00,000 out of the purchase price of this case at the time, and there was no reason to prepare a certificate of loan for KRW 40,000 as of April 8, 2010. However, the Plaintiff prepared a certificate of loan for KRW 100,000 on April 8, 2010 on condition that the Plaintiff prepared a certificate of loan for KRW 100,000 on April 8, 2010, and the Plaintiff did not prepare a certificate of loan for KRW 100,000 on the above KRW 10,000,000 on the ground that the loan certificate prepared by Defendant B was null and void.
The above court rejected Defendant B’s defense on September 28, 2012, and ordered Defendant B to the N above KRW 40,000,000.