[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Specialized in Full-Time Securitization (Law Firm Korea, Attorneys Kim Tae-sung et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellee)

Defendant

Intervenor joining the Defendant

October 15, 2009

Daegu District Court Decision 2007Gau10535 Decided September 26, 2008

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. Of the appeal costs, the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is assessed against the Defendant, and the part arising from the intervention is assessed against the Intervenor joining the Defendant.

1. Purport of claim

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 2,905,247 won with 17% interest per annum from October 25, 2003 to the service date of the original copy of the payment order of this case, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 16, 2003, Samsung Card Co., Ltd. entered into a loan settlement agreement between the Defendant’s Intervenor and the Defendant’s Intervenor to pay the credit card fee in arrears by the means of the settlement of ice-to-seeing, and the above loan settlement agreement states that the Defendant’s joint and several liability is stated in the above loan settlement agreement.

B. After October 24, 2003, Samsung Card Co., Ltd. received 482,220 won from the Defendant’s Intervenor and appropriated it to the principal of the above repayment claim, ELD Securities Co., Ltd. for the same day, and the Plaintiff received additional payment of KRW 3,435,957 (Criteria for Principal) from the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the assignment of claims on December 18, 2004. (C) Meanwhile, the Defendant was approved on November 2, 2006 by the Credit Counseling and Recovery Commission for the repayment of obligations to 10 financial institutions, including the above repayment claim, in installments, and the above approval was invalidated on November 2, 2006. The Plaintiff received 482,220 won from the Defendant’s Intervenor, and appropriated it to the principal of the above repayment claim, and then appropriated the remaining KRW 51,510 won to the Defendant’s Intervenor’s principal and the remaining KRW 484,295,2947,205).

[Ground of recognition] without any dispute, entry of Gap 1 through 5, and 8, inquiry result of the first instance court's credit recovery commission, purport of the whole pleading

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff asserts that, among his defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's claim for the takeover amount which was not paid until now, 2,905,247 won, the defendant who is a joint guarantor of the above repayment obligation, is liable to pay 2,905,247 won and damages for delay to the plaintiff.

B. As to this, the Defendant and the Intervenor asserted that there was no joint and several liability between Samsung Card Co., Ltd. and the Intervenor joining the Defendant regarding the aforesaid settlement agreement.

3. Determination

A. In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings as to whether the Defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the Defendant’s obligation to repay the Defendant’s Defendant’s reimbursement obligation according to the foregoing ice settlement contract, the Defendant’s name, signature, address, etc. recorded in the column of joint and several sureties of the above ice-to-face settlement contract (Evidence A6) are the Defendant’s writing. Accordingly, the authenticity of the above ice-to-face settlement contract can be recognized and the Defendant’s joint and several sureties is recognized.

B. In addition, the guaranteed obligation is transferred to the guarantor if the obligation against the principal debtor is transferred due to the subsidiary nature or accompanying nature of the principal obligation, and in this case, the requirements for setting up against the transfer of the obligation shall also be satisfied if it satisfies the requirements for setting up against the principal obligation, and it is not necessary to separately set up the requirements for setting up against the principal obligation (Supreme Court Decision 2002Da21509 Decided September 10, 2002), and the repayment claim of the above loan settlement contract was transferred to the Plaintiff on October 24, 2003. The Plaintiff notified the Defendant Defendant, the principal debtor, of the assignment of the obligation on December 18, 200 pursuant to Article 7 of the Asset-Backed Securitization Act, and thus, the obligation against the Defendant, the guarantor, is also transferred to the Plaintiff.

C. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 2,905,247, which is the unpaid balance of the above transfer money, and the damages for delay calculated by each of the annual rates of 28% (Evidence A No. 4) calculated from October 25, 2003 to March 22, 2007, the service date of the original copy of the payment order of this case, which is the date of delivery of the original copy of the payment order of this case, to the Plaintiff.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Dong-jin (Presiding Judge)