beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff:
A. Defendant C shall pay KRW 15,045,016 as well as 30% per annum from January 11, 2013 to the date of full payment.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. On September 14, 201, the Plaintiff, upon the introduction of D on September 14, 201, lent KRW 30,000,00 to the deceased B (the deceased) for the interest rate of KRW 3% per month, and due date of repayment of KRW 30,00,000 on October 13, 201. (2) Defendant C guaranteed the deceased’s loan obligation to the Plaintiff on the same day. As to Article 301 of Seodaemun-gu Seoul owned by Defendant C, the Plaintiff completed the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage of “36,00,000 won for the debtor, the deceased, and the maximum debt amount of KRW 36,00,00.”
3) A deceased’s death on December 2, 2014, and Defendant C, his spouse, inherited the deceased’s property solely by inheritance. Defendant C approved the inheritance limited partnership (Seoul District Court High Court Decision 2014 Modan2003). [The purport of the entire pleadings is as follows: (a) there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, A1, 2, 3, 1, 2, 3, 1, 2, 1 and 2, testimony of witnesses D, and the purport of the entire pleadings.
B. Determination 1) According to the above facts, Defendant C is a joint and several surety, barring any special circumstance, and Defendant C is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the loan amount of KRW 30,00,000 and interest thereon within the scope of the property inherited from the network B jointly and severally with Defendant C as the heir of the principal obligor, and Defendant C is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the loan amount of KRW 30,00,000, and interest thereon. 2) As to this, Defendant C asserted that “A’s name and joint and several surety’s name in the certificate of loan No. 1 is identical with the seal of the Defendant, but there is no fact that the Defendant had jointly and severally and severally guaranteed.” As such, Defendant C’s above assertion is without merit, since it is presumed that the entire document’s authenticity was established as a joint and several surety, and there is no dispute over the part of the Defendant C’s seal, and thus, it can be acknowledged that Defendant C has jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation of the deceased
3. In addition, the Defendants asserted that the principal of the borrowed amount is KRW 20,000,000,000,000, which was paid by the Deceased, returned to D by the Plaintiff or the Plaintiff’s agent.
According to the records of No. 1, the deceased is above.