beta
Text
1. The defendant shall be jointly and severally and severally with Company B and C for KRW 364,49,097 and KRW 143,01,059 among them.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. Fact-finding 1) The Credit Guarantee Fund concluded a credit guarantee agreement with B, and filed a lawsuit against B, Defendant, etc. on the claim for indemnity (Seoul Central District Court 2008Gahap70423) by asserting that the Defendant jointly and severally guaranteed all of the obligations owed by B to the Credit Guarantee Fund in accordance with the said credit guarantee agreement, and received a judgment in favor of the Defendant in full, and the said judgment was finalized on July 28, 2009 against the Defendant. 2) The Credit Guarantee Fund transferred the above claims against the Defendant to the Plaintiff on June 30, 2015, and notified the Defendant of the fact of transferring its assignment on July 7, 2015.
3) As of December 4, 2018, the claim against the Defendant as of December 4, 2018 is based on the sum of the principal and interest in KRW 364,449,097, and the balance of principal is KRW 143,01,059, and the overdue interest rate is 12% per annum. [The purport of each entry and the whole purport of arguments set forth in subparagraphs A through 4, based
B. According to the above facts of determination, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 364,49,097 won and 143,01,059 won with interest calculated at the rate of 12% per annum from December 5, 2018 to the date of full payment.
2. The defendant's assertion is asserted to the effect that the defendant's signature and seal stated in the column for joint and several surety of the above credit guarantee agreement was forged without any joint and several surety of the Credit Guarantee Fund B.
However, since the plaintiff takes over the money based on the previous judgment and claims the payment thereof, the defendant's assertion that the res judicata is denied is without merit, unless the previous judgment is revoked by a retrial.
3. The plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.