beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff, which caused the claim, lent KRW 40 million to C, the Defendant’s mother on April 10, 2006, and was paid KRW 40 million among them. On July 20, 2012, the Defendant’s guarantee (Evidence A No. 3) lent KRW 28 million and the Defendant’s total loans worth KRW 42 million remain.
Around September 1, 2013, the Defendant prepared and proposed that the Plaintiff repay the above loan amounting to KRW 42 million by May 1, 2015 (Evidence 1). This is a guarantee for the Plaintiff’s loan obligation to the Plaintiff or an acquiring it concurrently, and the Plaintiff is obligated to return the loan to the Plaintiff. It is not a domestic case.
Even if the defendant succeeded to the above 42 million won loan obligations against the plaintiff, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff 14 million won to the plaintiff, as it succeeded to the 1/3 of the loan obligations against the plaintiff.
2. Determination
A. The defendant is disputing the authenticity of the establishment of the part of the defendant's name among the evidence Nos. 1 (Dismissal) and evidence Nos. 3 (Loan Nos. 10 to 12) alleged by the defendant that the plaintiff made a judgment on the assumption of the obligation to assume the obligation of guarantee or disease. Thus, even if considering the evidence submitted by the plaintiff including the evidence No. 10 to 12, it is insufficient to acknowledge the authenticity, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and therefore, the evidence No. 1 and No. 3 cannot be used as evidence
Furthermore, there is no evidence to prove otherwise that the defendant guaranteed or assumed the obligation of C.
Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.
B. The Plaintiff asserted that C was dead and succeeded to the Defendant’s debt. However, according to the evidence No. 2, C died on October 24, 2014. On December 1, 2014, the Defendant reported the renunciation of inheritance to C’s property under the Changwon District Court Decision 2014Ra1072. On December 4, 2014, it is recognized that C received the said report. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without need to examine whether C was liable to the Plaintiff.