beta
Text
1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim against the defendant is dismissed.
2...
Reasons
1. According to the records of this case as to the legitimacy of the appeal for subsequent completion, when the complaint of this case against the defendant was sent to Seongdong-gu Seoul and the second floor where the defendant had his domicile, and it was impossible to serve the defendant, the court of first instance rendered a favorable judgment on May 9, 2012 after serving the complaint of this case and the notice of the date of pleading by public notice, and served the plaintiff on May 9, 2012. The original copy of the judgment also served by public notice, and the service of the defendant on the defendant was effective on May 30, 2012, and the defendant became aware that the first instance judgment was issued on March 30, 2015. According to the above facts, according to the above facts, the defendant could not comply with the period of appeal because the defendant could not comply with the period of appeal since March 30, 2015 that the defendant raised the appeal of this case from March 30, 2015 to April 6, 2015.
2. Judgment on the merits
A. (1) On March 30, 201, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 2,500,000 to B at least 44% per annum of the loan interest rate and overdue interest rate, and five years from the date of concluding the loan contract.
(2) At the time of the above loan, when the copy of the joint and several guarantee contract that the Defendant guaranteed the Defendant’s debt and the Defendant’s resident registration certificate was submitted to the Plaintiff, the employee in charge of the Plaintiff called to the Defendant before performing the above loan and explained the terms and conditions of the loan and the contents of the joint and several guarantee, and asked the Defendant’s personal information, the intent of the joint and several guarantee, and whether the contract was written as
(3) B was unable to repay the above loans and lost the benefit of time, and the principal of the above loans and obligations not repaid by B is KRW 2,113,576.
(4) The Plaintiff’s claim against B and the Defendant regarding the above loan agreement is against the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor via the KSS SPS loan company.