beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
purport:
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court concerning this case is as follows, and the part of the judgment of the court of first instance is added to the defendant's argument that was newly made in the court of first instance as follows, and it is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the addition of the defendant's argument that was newly made in the court of first instance as set forth in the following 2. Thus,
(1) The second nine (the second half) of the judgment of the first instance court (the second half (A) was finalized on June 11, 2003), and the “F Co., Ltd. operated by the outside D, and the Plaintiff and E, who are the co-suretiess of D, jointly and severally guaranteed the Defendant’s obligation of loans (the principal of the loan is KRW 20 million) that D bears to D. The Plaintiff’s obligation to the Defendant by the above judgment is added.”
(2) The second 18th 18th 1st 2th 2th 100 (underline 3) judgment of the court of first instance added “(the total amount of the Plaintiff’s obligations against bankruptcy creditors in the list of creditors in the above bankruptcy and exemption case exceeds KRW 800 million).”
(3) The fourth fourth decision of the first instance court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da29858, Sept. 4, 2014) added “the burden of proving the debtor’s bad faith to the creditor who asserts it.”
(4) 4th 21th 21th 21th 21th 2 of the first instance judgment (under 1st ) (under 1st ). Then, the instant debt is a debt incurred by the joint and several sureties’s debt owed to the Defendant, and it is more so in considering the fact that the instant debt amount is merely KRW 20 million compared to the Plaintiff’s total debt amount owed to the Defendant.
2. Additional determination
A. The defendant's assertion that the plaintiff purchased the multi-household housing N on the Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government M on November 26, 2002, the non-party O (the defendant O alleged that he/she is the plaintiff's son, but according to the statement of the family relation certificate No. 7, O is not the plaintiff's son).