beta
Text
1. The Defendants jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff KRW 170,000,000 and Defendant B from March 2, 2011 to August 12, 2014.
Reasons
1. In full view of the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2-1 to 6 of Gap evidence Nos. 2, the following facts can be acknowledged, and only the descriptions Nos. 1-3 and 2-1 to 3 of Eul evidence Nos. 1-2 are insufficient to reverse it, and there is no other counter-proof.
In order to raise operating funds for Defendant C’s road packaging business, Defendant C, a partner of Defendant C, requested the Plaintiff to lend money, and the Plaintiff loaned KRW 210,000,000 to Defendant C or Defendant B in total from January 14, 2005 to September 17, 2007.
After that, on March 2, 2011, the Defendants prepared and issued to the Plaintiff a certificate of borrowing that “Defendant B borrowed KRW 170,000,000 from the Plaintiff for the interest rate of KRW 1.5% per month and on March 2, 2012, and Defendant C guaranteed the said obligation.”
(2) On February 1, 200, the Plaintiff’s expression of intent to bear the Defendant’s obligation based on the preparation and delivery of the above loan certificate (hereinafter “instant agreement”) sought the repayment of the obligation pursuant to the instant agreement. Defendant B, as the decision to grant immunity due to bankruptcy, became final and conclusive, and thus, the Plaintiff cannot seek the payment of the loan claim against Defendant B.
In full view of the overall purport of the statements and arguments, evidence Nos. 4, Eul evidence Nos. 5-1, and Eul evidence Nos. 5-2, Defendant B filed an application for bankruptcy and discharge under the Suwon District Court 2007Hadan2977, 2007Ma2996 on March 5, 2007, and the above court was declared bankrupt on September 19, 2007 and decided to grant discharge on January 8, 2008, respectively. The above decision to grant discharge becomes final and conclusive on January 23, 2008 is recognized.
However, the instant agreement was concluded on March 2, 201, after the decision to grant the above exemption became final and conclusive, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim based on the instant agreement does not constitute a property claim arising prior to the Defendant B’s declaration of bankruptcy, and thus, the said decision to grant the exemption.