logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2018.12.19 2018나2041113
양수금
Text

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, and this case is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the following modifications.

[Corrections] Following the 8th sentence of the first instance court, the following shall be added to the 18th sentence:

Meanwhile, unlike the case of vicarious joint and several liability, the plaintiffs asserts to the effect that the so-called "major joint and several liability relationship" exists between the Gap Heavy Industries and the defendant. Thus, according to the guaranteed liability, the effect of extending the due date for repayment for the Gap Heavy Industries or changing the starting point of extinctive prescription pursuant to the above, etc., on the defendant who is the guarantor, should also be viewed as on the defendant who is the guarantor. However, even if the "major joint and several relationship" between the Gap Heavy Industries and the defendant is acknowledged, the issue of whether the relationship between them can be deemed as corresponding to the joint and several liability shall exceed the limit of the literal interpretation of the phrase "joint and several liability" under Article 530-9 (1) of the Commercial Act, and it shall not be permitted ( even if the relationship between them is deemed as joint and several liability relationship, Article 423 of the Civil Act provides that the matters concerning joint and several liability other than the matters under Articles 416 through 422 of the Civil Act shall not be effective, and it does not affect the extension of the due date for the above plaintiffs to the defendant.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' above assertion is without merit."

2. In conclusion, the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow