beta
Text
1. The plaintiff
A. As to the Defendant B’s KRW 45,993,834 and KRW 33,00,000 among those amounts, Defendant B from June 3, 2014 to September 4, 2015.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B
(a) Indication of claims: To be as shown in the reasons for the claims;
(However, only part on Defendant B). (b)
Applicable provisions of Acts: Article 208 (3) 2 of the Civil Procedure Act (Judgment by deemed as Confession)
2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant C
A. Basic facts (1) On May 13, 2005, the Plaintiff: (a) on May 13, 2005, lent KRW 35,000,000 to Defendant B (hereinafter referred to as “B”) without setting interest thereon; and (b) on March 30, 2006, the Plaintiff set the due date for repayment as March 30, 2006.
(2) When the Plaintiff demanded the B to guarantee the repayment of the obligation, the borrower was the intent of the B to guarantee the above loan obligation of the Defendant C on May 13, 2005, and the B signed the loan certificate in which D name is stated, and delivered it to the Plaintiff.
(3) Of the above loan 35,00,000 won, the Plaintiff received KRW 1,00,000,000, which is a part of the principal, from B, as of May 2, 2005; KRW 1,000,000, which is a part of the principal, around August 2005; and KRW 300,000, which is a part of the damages for delay on June 19, 2007, when the due date for repayment expires, and KRW 20,000, which is a part of the damages for delay on June 2, 2014.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence No. 1, the whole purport of pleading
B. (1) Both parties asserted that the Plaintiff secured the obligation to guarantee the principal obligation in B’s loan and the obligation to compensate for delay amounting to KRW 35 million. Thus, Defendant C and Defendant C are liable for the refund of the respective loan and the obligation to compensate for delay.
As to this, Defendant C and Nonparty D jointly guaranteed the Defendant C’s obligation, Defendant C and Nonparty D shared guaranteed the obligation. Accordingly, Defendant C, based on the separate interest of the joint guarantee as prescribed in Article 439 of the Civil Act, asserts that Defendant C bears the guaranteed obligation only half of each of the loans and damages for delay amounting to KRW 35 million.
(2) Whether the guarantor with respect to the loan obligations of the judgment B is Defendant C or not.