beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On September 14, 2010, E loaned KRW 40,000,00 to the co-defendant B, the Defendant’s mother, as the Defendant’s mother, as the interest rate of KRW 2% per month and the due date of payment on September 14, 2011.
B. Defendant C jointly and severally guaranteed the above loan debt of Defendant C.
C. E (hereinafter “the deceased”) died on October 14, 2013, and the Plaintiff (the appointed party; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the appointed party A, who is his/her spouse, succeeded to the Deceased.
B paid interest until January 14, 2013.
[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is jointly and severally liable to pay to the plaintiff 24,000,000 won (=40,000,000 won x inheritance share 3/5) x inheritance share x D 16,00,000 won (=40,000,000 won x inheritance share x 2/5) and damages for delay calculated by the agreement rate of 24% per annum from January 15, 2013 to the date of full payment.
B. Determination 1 on the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant did not clearly express his/her intention of guarantee, i.e., the Defendant, upon B’s request, stated his/her address and name in the column for joint and several surety (Evidence A). However, the Defendant withdrawn his/her intent of guarantee after entering the wife and the deceased. The Defendant asserts that there is no joint and several surety liability against the Plaintiff and the appointed party since the Defendant did not clearly express his/her intent of guarantee against the deceased. The court, in principle, should recognize the existence and content of the declaration of intent in accordance with the language and text, unless there is any clear and acceptable counter-proof that denies the contents of the written instrument that recognized the authenticity of the establishment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da58728, May 13, 2011). Even if the Defendant did not express his/her intention of joint and several surety directly, as seen earlier, even if the Defendant did not express his/her intention of guarantee in person, as alleged by the Defendant.