beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) within the limit of KRW 8,340,000:
A. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) loan Co., Ltd.
Reasons
Basic Facts
B around March 17, 2014, a loan was made on condition of 39% per annum by the Defendants of the Credit Service Company. As to the above loan obligations of B, the joint and several guarantee contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Daesan loan, Dongsan loan, Taesan loan, Taesan loan, and Kaol loan was made on condition of 8,340,000 won, and between the Plaintiff and Defendant CNA loan, the joint and several guarantee contract was made on condition of 7,80,000 won with the maximum amount of the guaranteed obligation as 7,80,000 won.
B did not pay interest from January 6, 2015 on the Defendant Daesan loan, Dongsan loan, and Taesan loan, and the balance of the loan to the said Defendants is KRW 5,929,767, respectively.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 2-1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 4, Eul evidence Nos. 2, 3, 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, Eul evidence Nos. 2, 3, 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1, and Eul Nos. 2, 3, 5, and Eul evidence Nos. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings, the plaintiff's assertion of the parties to the whole purport of the pleading, and even if he/she expressed his/her intent to stand joint and several sureties, it was in violation of Article 3 of the Special Act on the Protection of Surety (hereinafter "Surety Protection Act"), and thus, the effect of the guarantee has not occurred, so long as he/she did not have any obligation
The Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff jointly and severally guaranteed the loan obligations of B.
In addition, even if Defendant Daesan loan and Dongsan loan are counterclaims and seek the performance of joint and several liability within the maximum amount of the guaranteed obligation, and as a preliminary joint and several liability is null and void, the Plaintiff, as if the above Defendants had a guarantor, committed a tort in which the said Defendants could not obtain a loan and collect the balance of the loan, and the balance of the loan is equivalent.