beta
Text
1. The Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 347,961,875 as well as KRW 115,674,143 as from August 26, 2014.
Reasons
1. The plaintiff's cause of claim as to the cause of claim is as shown in the separate sheet. Since the plaintiff's cause of claim can be recognized by comprehensively considering the purport of all pleadings in Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 8 (including additional numbers), the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the amount stated in the order
2. Determination as to Defendant B’s assertion
A. Defendant B, as Defendant A’s wife, lent the name of the representative director of Defendant C, and Defendant C offered 730 million won (hereinafter “instant apartment”) as security at the time it was loaned from the new Savings Bank on November 24, 2009 from the new Savings Bank. However, Defendant A extended the period of each of the above loan contracts on November 24, 2010 and November 23, 2011, and arbitrarily sealed Defendant B’s seal and written Defendant B as joint and several sureties.
In addition, on June 29, 2012, Defendant A entered Defendant B in the document of debt acquisition agreement at will at the time of taking over the obligation of Defendant C as joint and several sureties.
As such, Defendant B did not sign the documents of joint and several sureties at the time of June 2012, and such joint and several sureties has no effect pursuant to Article 3(1) of the Special Act on the Protection of Surety.
B. Article 3(1) of the former Special Act on the Protection of Suretys (amended by Act No. 13125; hereinafter “former Act”) provides that “A guarantee shall take effect in writing with the name and seal or signature of the guarantor,” and Article 3(3) of the same Act provides that “if the guarantor has performed his/her guaranteed obligation, he/she shall not assert the invalidation on the ground of defects in the method of paragraphs (1) and (2) to the extent that the guarantor has performed the guaranteed obligation,” and Article 11 of the same Act provides that “Any agreement contrary to this Act and that is disadvantageous to
However, according to the statement in Gap evidence No. 5, the defendant Eul received a loan from the new savings bank on November 5, 2009 from the defendant Eul on November 5, 2009.