beta
Text
1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.
Purport of claim and appeal
1.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which cited the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, is to dismiss “a claim for indemnity” of the 5th and 13th of the 5th of the judgment of the court of first instance as “a claim for return of unjust enrichment.” The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following additional determination as to the matters alleged in the court of first instance
2. Additional determination
A. The gist of the Defendants’ assertion 1) The Plaintiff sought interest on the agreed amount under the instant agreement from the Defendants. However, the Defendants’ assertion that the Defendants paid part of the agreed amount until August 2010, and did not pay it thereafter is believed that the Plaintiff is able to cover the above agreed amount with the sale price, by holding the studio on the ground of Gri land received from Defendant B around June 2010. However, the studio was not in place, and there was no intention or negligence by the Defendants, and thus, it violates the good faith principle to seek interest on the agreed amount against the Defendants, even though there was no agreement on the guarantee period, it is deemed that the period is three years, and even if the guarantee period is renewed, the obligee should notify the guarantor of the fact.
According to Article 4 of the same Act, the maximum amount of the guaranteed debt must be specified in writing and the same shall apply to the renewal of the guarantee period.
Defendant C is a joint and several surety for the contractual obligation under the instant agreement, and the Plaintiff did not notify the Defendant C of the renewal of the guarantee period even after the lapse of three years from December 4, 2009, which was the date of the instant agreement, on December 3, 2012, and there is no specific specified amount in writing for the maximum amount of the guarantee obligation. Thus, pursuant to Article 11 of the said Special Act (any agreement that violates this Act and that is disadvantageous to the guarantor is invalid).