beta
Text
1. Defendant B’s KRW 135,00,000 as well as 5% per annum from July 2, 2015 to October 11, 2016 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On November 30, 201, the Plaintiff lent KRW 150 million to the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”).
B. On January 2, 2015, when the Plaintiff additionally lent KRW 100 million to Nonparty Company, the Plaintiff prepared a loan certificate with the following content as to KRW 250 million in total, including KRW 150 million.
Interest on loans with a borrowed amount of KRW 250 million: 1.5% per month (8% at the maturity of six months, and KRW 20 million): the due date of repayment:
With respect to the loan obligations under the above sub-paragraph (b), E (the operator of the non-party company) has guaranteed, F and Defendant B guaranteed each guarantee limit of KRW 135 million.
On August 8, 2016, Defendant B entered into a donation contract with Defendant C, the spouse, on the real estate listed in the attached Table (hereinafter “instant real estate”) and 625 square meters prior to G innju-si (hereinafter “instant donation contract”) and completed the instant real estate on August 16, 2016, and on September 1, 2016, the ownership transfer registration was completed.
Defendant B has no property other than the above immovables.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 10, 11, 12 and 54, witness E's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the claim against Defendant B, Defendant B, as a joint and several surety, is obligated to pay the Plaintiff, a creditor, the maximum amount of KRW 135 million, and the damages for delay calculated at each rate of 5% per annum as prescribed by the Civil Act, from July 2, 2015 to October 11, 2016, when a copy of the complaint of this case was served, from July 2, 2015, which is the following day, to the day of full payment, to the day of full payment.
Defendant B’s assertion that there is no guarantee obligation is rejected.
Defendant B, as the Plaintiff and E and F, entered into a joint and several surety contract by mistake of their deception (use, marriage relationship between the Plaintiff and F) or important parts, set forth in the evidence Nos. 4 and 5.