beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. On December 23, 2004, Company B (hereinafter “B”) entered into a comprehensive passbook loan agreement with Korea Savings Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Korea Savings Bank”) with a loan limit of 300 million won, and the loan period of 1 year (hereinafter “instant loan agreement”). At the time, the Plaintiff, a representative director of the B, was the joint and several surety of B’s loan obligations.
【Ground for recognition】 There is no dispute
2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment
A. After the Plaintiff’s assertion was made, C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) took over the principal and interest of loan as discharge, and the Plaintiff’s debt, a joint guarantor, extinguished, and even if it is not recognized to assume a domestic obligation, the statute of limitations expired.
B. In full view of whether there was an exemption agreement, and the overall purport of the pleadings, it can be acknowledged that the Korea Savings Bank sent a certificate of content on June 19, 2012, and that the Korea Savings Bank did not otherwise notify B or the Plaintiff of the performance of its obligations until it notified the payment of overdue loans.
However, in order for C to take over the obligations of this case as a discharge, the consent of the Korea Savings Bank is required to obtain the consent of the Korea Savings Bank, and there is no document therefor, and the Plaintiff asserted that B entered into the obligation assumption contract with C immediately after receiving the instant loan on December 23, 2004, but the Korea Savings Bank entered into an additional agreement to change the terms of the instant loan agreement over three times on January 7, 2005, Jan. 20, 2005, Jan. 20, 2005, and Jan. 20, 2005, Jan. 24, 2006 (Evidence B). In light of the above facts and witness evidence alone, it is insufficient to recognize the fact that B, Korea Savings Bank, and C third parties have agreed to take over the obligations of this case as a discharge discharge, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.
C. The right to claim the completion of the statute of limitations is justified, and the defendant claims.