beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On November 27, 2009, Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant B”) borrowed KRW 100 million from the Plaintiff, and drafted a promissory note amounting to KRW 100 million for the Plaintiff, the Defendant Company and its representative director, a joint issuer. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff would pay 4% interest of KRW 100 million for the said KRW 100,000,000, and made an agreement on November 27, 2010 to pay that amount until November 27, 2010, and F guaranteed the Defendant Company’s obligation.
B. On the other hand, the above agreement has the name and resident registration number of Defendant C printed in the guarantor column, and C’s seal is affixed, and the copy of F’s resident registration issued by the Gdong head of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government is attached on the same day.
C. On July 1, 2011, the Defendant Company drafted a letter to the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff would preferentially repay the Plaintiff’s obligation to the Plaintiff at the H site in Jeonju-si.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion and judgment
A. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant company is the principal debtor of the loan obligation against the plaintiff, and the remaining Defendants shall pay the plaintiff KRW 100 million and its delay damages as joint and several sureties.
As to this, the Defendants asserted that, in the case of Defendant 2 through 4, there was no joint and several surety for the Defendant Company’s loan obligations, and that the five-year statute of limitations has lapsed as commercial bonds.
B. (1) In the case of Defendant 2 through 4, it is not sufficient to find that the above Defendants jointly and severally and severally guaranteed the Defendant’s obligation solely based on the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the Plaintiff’s premise that Defendant 2 through 4 is a joint and several surety.