beta
Text
1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 30,000,000 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate from September 22, 2011 to June 29, 2016.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) On March 21, 201, the Plaintiff jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation to return the loan to Nonparty C at the time of lending KRW 30 million to Nonparty C, and thus, the Plaintiff is obligated to repay KRW 30 million to the Plaintiff. 2) The Defendant did not have jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation to return the loan to Nonparty C, and the Defendant’s indication on the loan certificate is merely the Plaintiff’s membership.
B. The interpretation of an expression of intent to determine is clearly confirming the objective meaning that the parties gave to the act of indicating, and where the content of a contract is written in writing as a disposal document, it shall be reasonably interpreted by the content of the written document, regardless of the party’s internal intent. In this case, if the objective meaning of the text is clear, the existence and content of the expression of intent shall be recognized as stipulated in the text, unless there are special circumstances.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da92487 Decided May 13, 2010, etc.). According to the foregoing legal doctrine, according to the description of evidence No. 1 as to the instant case and the record of evidence No. 1, the loan certificate prepared at the time of the instant loan is deemed as KRW 30 million on the loan certificate prepared at the time of the instant loan.
9. It can be recognized that “D Company E and F Company B” is written to be repaid up to 21. The main debtor’s store name and name are the same as that of the defendant’s store E under the indication of the main debtor E, and there is no other indication of “contestor”, and if written in the disposal document only in the capacity of the witness, it is ordinary to clarify the observer’s identity, and the defendant was written on behalf of the E, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, it is reasonable to view that the defendant has joint and several liability for the repayment of the loan as joint and several liability as joint and several liability.
Therefore, the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 30 million and the above amount.