beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. Defendant A borrowed KRW 20,00,000 from the Do Forest Credit Union (hereinafter “Do Forest Credit Union”) around June 1992 (hereinafter “No. 1”) (hereinafter “Do Forest Credit Union”); ② around July 30, 1994, KRW 10,00,00 from the Geumcheon Credit Union (hereinafter “Ycheon Credit Union”); and Defendant B jointly and severally guaranteed Defendant A’s loan obligations with respect to the above loan No. 2.
B. Since then, Defendant A was requested to repay the first loan from the Dog Dog Dog Do, but the repayment was not made in full, and even though the maturity of the second loan has arrived, Defendant A did not fully pay it.
C. On June 21, 2013, the Plaintiff acquired the first loan claims from the Gambain Union, and the second loan claims from the Kambain Union, respectively, and notified the Defendant A of the assignment of claims with the delegation from each of the above transferor on June 23, 2014.
As of June 21, 2013, the principal of the first loan remains in KRW 10,858,736, and the second loan remains in KRW 852,828.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2-2, Gap evidence 2-6, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the facts of the determination as to the cause of the claim, Defendant A is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff who acquired each of the above loans as the principal debtor of the above loans 1,711,564 won (=10,858,736 won) and damages for delay thereof, barring any special circumstance, Defendant A is jointly and severally liable to pay 852,828 won out of the above loans and damages for delay to the Plaintiff who acquired the above loans as the principal debtor of the above loans 1,711,564 won (=10,858,736 won). Defendant B is jointly and severally liable with Defendant A as the joint and several
In regard to this, Defendant B did not have any joint and several sureties with respect to the second loan, and argued that the name of the above Defendant was stolen by any arbitr. However, Defendant B-5.