beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 10 million to the Plaintiff, as well as the Plaintiff’s KRW 5% per annum from April 12, 2016 to November 24, 2016.
Reasons
1. Determination C on the argument of the cause of the instant claim: (a) around February 22, 2012, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 200 million from the Plaintiff; (b) on the date 100 days from the loan date, the remainder of KRW 100 million from the date 100,000,000, was agreed to be paid after the completion of D land development projects at the time of harmony; (c) the Defendant’s joint and several guarantee of C’s loan obligation is either disputing between the parties or based on the statement in
In accordance with the above facts, the defendant is a joint and several surety obligation for the plaintiff, and the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff KRW 100,000,000 which has already been due and due and due, and interest for delay.
Around July 8, 2014, the Plaintiff, the principal debtor, agreed to pay the amount of KRW 200 million to the Defendant if the Plaintiff agreed to pay all the amount of money lent to C by that time.
However, in addition to KRW 100,000,00, the remaining KRW 100,000,000, which had been due under the above agreement, was clearly agreed to pay after completion of D land development projects, and there is no evidence to prove that the above land development project was completed on the record, and even if the principal debtor renounced the terms and conditions of the repayment period added under the initial agreement or the benefit of the deadline and promised to pay, it cannot be said that the same effect takes effect on the joint and several surety, and therefore, C, the principal debtor, as the joint and several surety, cannot affect the Defendant, the joint and several surety.
There is no assertion or proof on the right to seek additional KRW 100 million against the Defendant to the Plaintiff.
2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. The assertion 1 Defendant’s creation and the Plaintiff’s husband, C introduced the Defendant as “one person for whom the development project of the insular region is implemented.”
E and C proposed to the Defendant that the development project was defective by registering the name of the Plaintiff while “it was possible to develop the forest 8,600 square meters in South and North Korea”.