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 November 6, 2009, the oil supply contract was concluded between the Defendant (mutual name: C) and D (hereinafter “instant oil supply contract”). On the same day, the Plaintiff jointly and severally guaranteed the Defendant’s obligation to pay fuel to D under the said contract.
B. According to the instant oil supply contract, D supplied oil to the “F station” located in Sinju City E (hereinafter “instant gas station”), but did not receive the oil price. D received a judgment to the Plaintiff on March 3, 2011, ordering the Plaintiff to pay the amount of the oil price claim 28,027,682 won under the instant contract as the amount of the oil price claim 28,027,682 won and its delay damages under the instant contract, and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time. As for the above support 2011T532 on April 11, 2011, the Plaintiff, a police official pursuant to the instant judgment, was issued a seizure and collection order as to the amount until it reaches the amount of the monthly payment received by the Plaintiff from the Republic of Korea.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant operated the gas station of this case and entered into the oil supply contract of this case with D only jointly and severally guaranteed the defendant's obligation to pay for the oil to D. Since the plaintiff, a joint and several surety, obtained a seizure and collection order from D and repaid KRW 30,530,976 out of the above oil payment obligation, the defendant shall pay the plaintiff the above 30,530,976 won and the delay damages.
3. In full view of the facts acknowledged prior to the determination, and the following circumstances acknowledged as follows, Gap evidence Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12 (if there are serial numbers, including each serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 7, the plaintiff is a party to the oil supply contract of this case who is the actual principal debtor of the oil payment obligation under the above contract, and the defendant is the above oil payment obligation.