beta
Text
The defendants jointly and severally for the plaintiff 50,477,310 won and 50,197,013 won among them, from October 10, 2014 to December 12, 2014.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the claim against Defendant C&S
(a)as shown in the reasons for the attachment of the claim;
(b) Judgment on deemed confession (Article 208 (3) 2 of the Civil Procedure Act);
2. According to the overall purport of evidence Nos. 1 through 9 of the judgment as to the claims against Defendant A and B, Defendant A and B are jointly and severally liable for reimbursement obligations, etc. under the credit guarantee agreement of the Defendant CFS Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) against the Plaintiff on January 11, 2012. The Plaintiff’s subrogated payment on October 10, 2010 constituted reimbursement amount (payment by subrogation amounting to KRW 50,197,013, substitute payment amounting to KRW 280,297). The overdue interest rate of the contract is 12% per annum. Thus, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable for payment of the amount indicated in the order to the Plaintiff.
As to this, the defendants asserted that the plaintiff extended the credit guarantee period for the defendant company from January 11, 2013 to January 10, 2014, and did not obtain written consent from the defendants to the special act for the protection of the guarantor. Thus, the defendants do not bear joint and several liability for the indemnity amount incurred on October 10, 2014. However, the defendants agreed to the extension of the credit guarantee period for the defendant company. In addition, in individual guarantee for the loan obligation, the guarantor's right to indemnity against the debtor after the subrogation cannot be deemed as continuing guarantee because it is the same as the guarantee for the confirmed obligation specified at the time of the guarantee. Accordingly, as a joint and several surety for the confirmed obligation whose debt is specified, the defendant bears joint and several liability regardless of whether the period for the guaranteed obligation has been extended (see Supreme Court Decision 95Da51533, Mar. 8, 1996).
In addition, the defendant company's final and conclusive obligation.