beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 23,497,80 and the interest rate of KRW 24% per annum from March 21, 2014 to the day of full payment.
Reasons
1. On October 8, 2012, the Plaintiff and B entered into an installment financing agreement on the loan amount of KRW 31,00,000, annual interest rate of KRW 8.45%, overdue interest rate of KRW 24%, overdue interest rate of KRW 60, monthly payment from October 20, 2012, the repayment method of KRW 20, monthly payment from October 20, 2012, the first installment payment amount of KRW 574,8566, and the second installment payment amount of KRW 635,260 on equal installment terms, and the Defendant signed and sealed the Plaintiff’s joint guarantor of the above debt.
B does not pay the principal and interest of the above loan from March 20, 2014, and the principal and interest of the loan unpaid by the above B is KRW 23,497,80.
[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination and the defendant's argument
A. According to the above facts, the Defendant, as a joint and several surety, is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 23,497,800 with the loan principal in arrears, and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 24% per annum from March 21, 2014 to the date of full payment, which is the day following the date of delinquency in the loan obligation.
B. As to this, if the plaintiff lent the purchase price of the vehicle to B and set up a security for the vehicle, the defendant first asserts that he should first proceed with the auction and claim the defendant only for the deficient part of the motor vehicle, and then exercises the guarantor's highest right of defense of search (the main sentence of Article 437 of the Civil Act). However, according to the proviso of Article 437 of the Civil Act, in the case of a joint and several surety, the above defense right is not acknowledged. The defendant's assertion of this part of the joint and several
3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.