beta
Text
1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
2. All costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendants.
purport, purport, and.
Reasons
The reason for the acceptance of the judgment of the first instance is as follows, except for the dismissal of Paragraph (3) (No. 3, No. 10, and No. 19) of the text of the judgment of the first instance (No. 3, No. 3) as set forth in Paragraph (2) and adding the judgment of Paragraph (3) as set forth in paragraph (3) (Provided, That the part limited to Codefendant B of the first instance judgment is excluded). Therefore, the relevant part shall be cited in
The Defendants asserted that the Defendants: (a) transferred KRW 20,000,000 to the Plaintiff out of KRW 40,000,000 of the lease deposit return claim of KRW 40,000 in B; and (b) thereby, they agreed to extinguish the Defendants’ joint and several liability obligations with respect to the Plaintiff.
B Even if it is possible for the Plaintiff to recognize the fact that part of the lease deposit repayment claims against the Defendants were transferred to the Plaintiff, the assignment of claims shall be deemed to have been transferred by means of a security or repayment for the repayment of obligations, barring special circumstances, in the event that other claims are transferred to the Plaintiff for the repayment of obligations against the Defendants, barring special circumstances. Since the assignment of claims does not constitute a transfer in lieu of the repayment of obligations, the original claim is not extinguished (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 89Meu10385, Feb. 13, 1990). Therefore, the Defendants must prove that
However, it is difficult to readily believe that the statement in Eul evidence No. 6 is related to the plaintiff and the defendants, and the remaining evidence submitted by the defendants alone is insufficient to recognize that Eul transferred the claims for the return of the lease deposit to the defendants in lieu of the repayment to the plaintiff.
Ultimately, the defendants' assertion is without merit.
In addition, Defendant C may be deemed to have revoked the confession by asserting to the purport that he/she did not provide the above joint and several sureties in the first instance trial, even though he/she has led to the confession submitted by Defendant C.