beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s acceptance of the judgment is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the addition of paragraph (2) below, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure
2. The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff was paid KRW 2 million and interest KRW 42,40,00 from the Defendant’s wife C’s fault, and KRW 117 million (the Daejeon District Court 2018Kadan10439, June 13, 2019, issued a judgment ordering C to pay the Plaintiff KRW 117,00,000 to the Plaintiff in the loan lawsuit against the Plaintiff on June 13, 2019). The fact that the Plaintiff was paid KRW 200,000 and KRW 42,40,000 from the Defendant’s Defendant’s wife C’s fault did not conflict between the parties, or that the Plaintiff was paid KRW 17,00,00 from the Defendant’s wife C’s fault with KRW 20,000 or KRW 42,40,00 by the purport of the entire statement and oral argument as stated in subparagraph 1.
On the other hand, C’s loan obligations worth KRW 117 million and contractual obligations worth KRW 60 million according to the Defendant’s above written confirmation are independent obligations arising from separate causes or obligations with the same economic purpose, and with respect to overlapping parts, if one of the obligations becomes extinct due to repayment, etc., the other party’s obligation is also extinguished.
However, there is no evidence to deem that each of the above payments paid by C and C as repayment of the Defendant’s obligation, not the repayment of the Defendant’s obligation, does not exist. In the event that a large-sum obligor partially performs the obligation with different amounts, in light of the purport of the quasi-joint and several liability system that seeks to ensure the payment of the parties’ intent and the full amount of the obligation, the part which is extinguished first should be considered as the part on which the large-sum obligor solely assumes the obligation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da74236, Mar. 22, 2018).