beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. On October 11, 2010, the fact that the Plaintiff received a loan of KRW 30,000,000 as operating capital from the Defendant on October 11, 201 that the Plaintiff had engaged in the vehicle sales brokerage business, etc. under the trade name “B” does not conflict between the parties.
2. The parties' assertion and judgment
A. As the cause of the instant claim, the Plaintiff, a transferee of a business entity from the Plaintiff, agreed to accept the said loan obligation and issued a certificate of seal impression and a certificate of seal impression necessary for the debt acquisition contract on May 24, 2011, and the Plaintiff was aware that it was out of the obligation under the said loan contract, and the Plaintiff was jointly and severally guaranteed by the Plaintiff as of May 24, 201 as of May 24, 201 following the credit information inquiry, which was aware that it was out of the obligation under the said loan contract, and the Plaintiff was deemed to have jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation of C. As such, the said agreement was forged, and the Plaintiff did not have any obligation to the Defendant under the said loan contract, and thus, claimed that the confirmation was sought. As to the Plaintiff’s claim for the confirmation, the Defendant
B. "Assumption of obligation" means a contract under which a debtor originally assumed is to transfer a debt to a third party in the form of discharge or overlapping. It is a matter regarding the interpretation of the intent of the party under the assumption of an obligation that requires the consent of the obligee on the assumption of an obligation with respect to the assumption of an obligation with respect to the assumption of an obligation in order to become a discharged obligation, and where the assumption of an obligation overlaps with the other party on the assumption of an obligation, it is an issue regarding the assumption of an obligation (see Supreme Court Decision 98Da33765, Nov. 24, 1998; 98Da33765, Nov. 24, 199). If
(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da36228 delivered on September 24, 2002, etc.). C.
Even according to the statement of Gap evidence No. 4, C's debt acquisition agreement is merely stated as "dual debt acquisition", and the plaintiff's seal impression is in the joint and several surety column of loan transaction agreement in which the debtor is debtor C.