beta
Text
1. The Defendants shall jointly and severally serve as the Plaintiff KRW 170,952,931 and as a result, from March 26, 2014 to March 20, 2015.
Reasons
The plaintiff's assertion is identical to the statement on the grounds of the claim, and the defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "defendant A") is not clearly disputed, and thus, it is deemed that the defendant A made confession
Defendant B does not clearly dispute the fact that a claim for indemnity has occurred as alleged by the Plaintiff against the Defendant company by subrogation, due to the fact of a credit guarantee agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant company and the fact that he/she was a joint and several surety of the Defendant company at the time of the above credit guarantee agreement, and that he/she signed the column for joint and several surety of the Credit Guarantee Agreement (Evidence A 1) as a representative director
Thus, the defendant company is the principal obligor of the indemnity liability under the above joint and several liability agreement, and the defendant B is a joint and several surety and is jointly and severally liable to pay the amount subrogated by the plaintiff to the plaintiff and the damages for delay.
Defendant B promised to change his joint and several liability to the representative director newly appointed by the Plaintiff at the time of resignation from the office of the representative director of the Defendant Company on April 18, 2013, which he had been the joint and several liability after the said joint and several liability, and there is no evidence to acknowledge this.
In addition, at the time of the above credit guarantee agreement, the defendant B went bankrupt by the defendant company which has not secured only the representative director as joint and several sureties except eight directors of the defendant company at the time of the above credit guarantee agreement, and the plaintiff's act constitutes an abuse of rights. However, there is no ground to regard that the plaintiff's failure to require more joint and several sureties to the defendant company at the time of the credit guarantee agreement as abuse of rights against the defendant
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is with merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.