beta
Text
1. Promissory notes No. 375, June 9, 201, drawn up against the Defendant’s Plaintiff’s Joint Office of Cnotarial Officials, No. 375, against the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On May 31, 201, the Plaintiff issued to the Defendant, jointly with E, a promissory note No. 1 written at par value of KRW 200,000,000 and at sight of the due date, in order to secure the Defendant’s obligation to borrow loans. On June 9, 2011, the Plaintiff prepared and issued a notarial deed of Promissory Notes No. 1.
B. On August 16, 2013, the Plaintiff issued and delivered to the Defendant, in collaboration with E, the second promissory note with a face value of 300,000,000, and the payment at sight in order to secure the obligation to borrow loans against the Defendant of E, separate from the first promissory note. On the same day, the Plaintiff prepared and issued the second promissory note No. 2 on the same day.
C. On the basis of the authentic deed of promissory notes Nos. 1 and 2 on August 8, 2017, the Defendant was rendered a compulsory auction ruling (Seoul Eastern District Court G) on the land and buildings owned by the Plaintiff, Seongdong-gu Seoul, Seoul, but the procedure is currently suspended due to the decision to suspend compulsory execution of this case.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1-3, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. Plaintiff 1) As to the No. 1 Promissory Notes as to the No. 1 Promissory Notes, the extinctive prescription has expired under the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act, enforcement based on the No. 1 Promissory Notes No. 2 should be denied. 2) As to the No. 2 Promissory Notes No. 1, the No. 2 Promissory Notes No. 300,000 won increase the limit of the obligation secured by the No. 1 Promissory Notes No. 2 from KRW 200,000 to KRW 30,000, not new 300,000.
In addition, the Plaintiff does not guarantee the Defendant’s debt to the Defendant in the form of a comprehensive collateral guarantee, but merely guaranteed the Defendant’s debt to the extent of KRW 300,000,000 for a certain period based on the date of issuance of the Promissory Notes 2, and the Plaintiff already borrowed KRW 300,000 to the Defendant and repaid the debt in full during the above period. Therefore, the Plaintiff cannot be held liable to guarantee
(2) Even if the Plaintiff bears the guaranteed obligation, the Supreme Court shall determine the scope of the obligation.