beta
Text
1. The Defendants jointly and severally committed against the Plaintiff KRW 56,876,790 and Defendant A Co., Ltd. from February 6, 2018.
Reasons
1. Facts recognized;
A. Defendant B was the owner of a newly built urban-type residential house located in C in each city in each city and contracted the construction of the said house to Defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) around November 22, 2016.
B. From November 24, 2016 to June 23, 2017, the Defendant Company failed to pay ready-mixeds from the Plaintiff is KRW 56,876,790 (hereinafter “the instant price for goods”).
C. On February 2, 2017, Defendant B jointly and severally guaranteed the Defendant Company’s obligation to pay back to the Plaintiff (hereinafter the instant joint and several guarantee agreement).
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap's entries in Gap's evidence 1-1 to 4, and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff the sum of KRW 56,876,790 and damages for delay.
B. Defendant B’s assertion as to Defendant B’s assertion that he/she performed his/her obligation is the owner, and thus, he/she cannot comply with the Plaintiff’s claim. However, Defendant B’s assertion that he/she was unable to comply with the Plaintiff’s claim on the ground that he/she paid the price for the instant goods to Defendant A, on the sole basis that Defendant B paid the price for the instant goods to Defendant A., and thus, Defendant B’s claim that Defendant B did not have a joint and several surety obligation is reasonable. In addition, Defendant B confirmed that Defendant B had no joint and several surety obligation from Defendant A, the principal obligor, and thus, Defendant B could not comply with the Plaintiff’s claim. However
Since the guaranteed obligation cannot be extinguished, the defendant B's above assertion is without merit.
(iii) a special law for the protection of guarantors (hereinafter referred to as the “Surety Protection Act”);
Finally, Defendant B is the joint and several surety obligation of this case.