beta
Text
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. The Defendant’s loan case against the Plaintiff is Seoul Eastern District Court 2012 tea10945.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On October 30, 2009, the Defendant: (a) lent KRW 30 million to C on a monthly basis; and (b) on April 29, 2010, the due date for repayment was determined and lent to C.
(hereinafter “The instant loan loan obligation”). At the same time, the Plaintiff jointly and severally guaranteed the Defendant’s debt for the instant loan, and at the same time completed the registration of establishment of a mortgage on the first floor No. 102 (hereinafter “the instant real estate”) of DB-dong No. 45 million won with the maximum debt amount, CB-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage (hereinafter “the instant real estate”).
(hereinafter “instant collateral security”). B.
On November 1, 2012, the Defendant applied for a payment order against the Plaintiff as a joint and several surety (Seoul Eastern District Court 2012 tea10945), which was accepted by the above court, and on November 9, 2012, the Defendant issued a payment order stating that “the Plaintiff shall jointly and severally with C, pay to the Defendant the amount of KRW 30 million and the amount calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from the day following the delivery of the original copy of the above payment order to the day of complete payment (hereinafter “instant payment order”). The instant payment order reached the Plaintiff on November 16, 2012, and became final and conclusive on December 1, 2012.
2. The parties' assertion and judgment
A. (1) Around September 9, 2010, the parties asserted that the Defendant, C, and E take over the debt of the loan to the Defendant by the Defendant, C, and E, and C entered into a contract for the acquisition of the loan and the discharge of the debt of the loan. Accordingly, the debtor of the instant mortgage was changed to E.
Since the plaintiff's joint and several liability has ceased to exist as the debtor has changed, compulsory execution based on the original copy of the payment order of this case shall not be permitted.
(2) There is no fact that the Defendant entered into a contract acceptance agreement with the Defendant C or E, and there is no fact that the Defendant consented to the obligor replacement agreement between C and E.
C as a debtor for the above borrowed money, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the above borrowed money as a joint and several surety for the above borrowed money.
(b).