beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s payment order for the loan case against the Plaintiff was due to Busan District Court Branch 2012 tea 4141.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On April 8, 2004, the Defendant lent KRW 2.5 million to C, and the Plaintiff jointly and severally guaranteed the Defendant’s above obligation on the same day.
B. On November 19, 2012, the Defendant filed a payment order against the Plaintiff and C with the Busan District Court (hereinafter “instant payment order”) stating that “The Plaintiff and C shall jointly and severally pay to the Defendant the amount calculated as a non-payment of KRW 2.5 million per annum from the day following the delivery of the original copy of the payment order to the day of complete payment, and the expenses for demand procedure,” which read, “The Plaintiff and C shall pay to the Defendant the amount calculated as a non-payment of KRW 2.5 million per annum from the day after the delivery of the original copy of the payment order to the day of complete payment (hereinafter “instant payment order”).
(c)
The Plaintiff did not raise any objection to the instant payment order, and thus, the said payment order became final and conclusive, but C had raised an objection and the judgment was held as the Plaintiff No. 1316. On May 8, 2013, “C shall pay the Plaintiff KRW 1,250,000,000 to the Plaintiff on May 31, 2013 and KRW 550,000,000 shall be paid on June 28, 2013.
If the defendant delays this, he/she shall lose the benefit of the time and pay the unpaid amount in lump sum, and shall pay the delayed damages calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from the day after the delay to the day of full payment.
The plaintiff waives the remainder of the claim.
“Mediation” (hereinafter referred to as “Mediation”) was established.
(d)
C paid each of the costs of KRW 700,000,000 on May 31, 2013, and KRW 550,000 on June 28, 2013, as stipulated in the instant conciliation to the Plaintiff.
[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The obligor may raise an objection against a claim based on various grounds, such as the change, exemption, etc. that occurred after the closure of pleadings (Article 44 of the Civil Execution Act). In the case of joint and several guarantors, if the main debt is reduced, the debt is reduced to the same extent as the main debt (Article 430 of the Civil Act). This is recognized regardless of whether the judgment against the joint and several guarantors has become final and conclusive.