beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 170,000,000 as well as 5% per annum from July 31, 2007 to December 14, 2012 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The judgment C on the cause of the claim set forth on July 30, 2007 and borrowed from the Plaintiff and D on July 30, 2007 as the due date for repayment of KRW 220 million from the Plaintiff on October 30, 2007.
“A. (No. 1) was prepared and awarded a loan certificate, and the Defendant signed and sealed the above loan certificate as a joint and several surety, and on July 30, 2007, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 170 million, which deducted interest from the above 220 million interest to the Defendant’s account.
(A) No. 1 and B No. 3. Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is jointly and severally liable with C to pay damages for delay calculated by applying each ratio of 20% per annum under the Civil Act from July 31, 2007 to December 14, 2012, which is the service date of a copy of the complaint of this case, from July 31, 2007, which is the date of delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case, and from the following day to the date of full payment.
2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. The Defendant asserted that the loan KRW 120 million, out of the loan KRW 170 million that the Plaintiff sought, is the loan amount of KRW 120 million, not the Plaintiff, but the non-party D. However, as seen earlier, the loan certificate No. 1 signed and sealed by the Defendant as a joint guarantor stated that the loan certificate No. 1 signed and sealed by the Plaintiff was borrowed KRW 220 million from the Plaintiff, and the statement No. 3 alone is insufficient to recognize the above assertion by the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.
B. The Defendant asserts that the obligation is extinguished, instead of receiving the loan, that the Plaintiff received the deposit sheet of KRW 240 million, which is part of the remainder of the underground floor located in Mapo-gu Seoul, and agreed that the above C’s obligation and the Defendant’s guaranteed obligation are extinguished, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for the loan is groundless.
According to the above evidence and evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 5, C shall borrow money from the Plaintiff and offer as security and pay the borrowed money to the Plaintiff, the above apartment Nos. 601 if it is impossible to repay the borrowed money.