beta
Text
1. By a certified copy of the judgment in Seoul Central District Court Decision 2005Kadan216399 between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On March 27, 2003, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 42,360,000 from the Defendant.
B. On February 10, 2006, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for the return of advance payment amounting to Seoul Central District Court Decision 2005Kadan216399, and the judgment of February 10, 2006 that “the Plaintiff shall pay 35,50,000 won to the Defendant and the amount equivalent to 20% per annum from June 15, 2005 to the day of full payment” (hereinafter “the judgment of this case”), and the above judgment became final and conclusive as it is.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Eul evidence 1-1 and 2
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts of recognition, the plaintiff is obligated to pay 35,500,000 won to the defendant and 20% interest per annum from June 15, 2005 to the date of full payment.
B. As to this, the Plaintiff asserts that Nonparty C took over the Defendant’s obligation to pay advance payment (hereinafter “instant obligation”) based on the instant judgment, and C, on June 18, 2010, issued a promissory note equivalent to KRW 30 million to the Defendant pursuant to the assumption of obligation agreement, and made a notarial deed thereon at the same time. The Plaintiff’s obligation to the Defendant was all extinguished, as C paid to the Defendant, since it was paid to the Defendant for KRW 3,000 stocks owned by C at the time.
In the event of an agreement on the assumption of an obligation, unless there exists a conclusive agreement between the parties to the agreement to exempt the obligor from the obligor's obligation, or unless it is deemed that the obligor is exempt from the obligation in light of the various circumstances at the time of the agreement, the assumption of an obligation shall be deemed to be an overlapping assumption of an obligation. Therefore, it is difficult for C to regard the obligor's obligation as discharged from the Plaintiff's obligation solely on the basis of each description of evidence Nos. 2
C. In addition, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to fully exempt the remainder of the obligation when the Plaintiff repaid the amount of KRW 19 million to the Defendant and the Defendant, and thus, the obligation of this case is all.