beta
Text
1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s main claim and the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s counterclaim are all dismissed.
2...
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On September 21, 2001, the OF loaned KRW 80,000,000 to P, and the N, Defendant J, K, L, and M Co., Ltd jointly and severally guaranteed the above loan obligations of P.
The Fund received the Seoul Western District Court Decision 2006Kadan80790 decided March 3, 2007 with respect to the credit for recommended loans, including the above principal and interest of loans.
B. On March 20, 2007, an OF transferred the above principal and interest of loans to the Federation. On April 18, 2014, QF transferred to the Plaintiff a claim for the principal and interest of KRW 246,397,010, including the principal and interest of KRW 80,00,000, and interest and delay damages until the time of the transfer, and notified the Plaintiff of the transfer of the credit to P, N, Defendant J, K, L, and M.
C. N deceased on May 29, 201, and the Defendant B, C, D, E, F, G, H, and I inherited N’s property.
【In the absence of any dispute, entry in Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the purport of the whole pleadings】
2. On September 21, 2001, the Plaintiff sought payment of money as stated in the purport of the claim against the joint guarantor and his heir on the ground that the Plaintiff acquired the claim for the principal and interest of the loan to P from the O Treasury on September 21, 2001.
However, on April 17, 2018, after the filing of the instant lawsuit, there was a confession that the principal debtor P received some of the principal and interest of the instant case from P as the principal debtor and agreed to treat the said debt as the full payment.
(2) The Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants is without merit, since all of the Defendants’ obligations are guaranteed by the principal debtor P as the principal debtor P’s principal obligation, and the principal obligation is extinguished. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim as to the principal claim against the Defendants is without merit.
3. Judgment on the counterclaim
A. The Defendants stated their respective claims on unjust enrichment return, given that the Plaintiff received reimbursement from P or the Defendants in excess of the remaining claims through compulsory execution, etc.