beta
(영문) 대구지방법원 2017.06.01 2016나307895

집행판결

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

purport, purport, and.

Reasons

1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the judgment of the court of first instance are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the modification of two parts of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, this part is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The third written judgment of the court of first instance is referred to as "(2) of the 12th written judgment" as "(3)."

(b) 3 others under the fourth sentence of the first instance court.

The parts of the subsection shall be amended as follows:

1) Defendant C and D, who are the Defendant’s children, participated in the preparation of the Notarial Deed at the Plaintiff’s request as a joint guarantor.

Even if the preparation of the instant notarial deed was made by H’s act of unauthorized Representation, Defendant D and C implicitly ratified the preparation of the instant notarial deed made in H’s name.

In addition, even though Defendant D and C demanded the repayment of the joint and several liability based on the instant notarial deed, they did not dispute it, in particular, in the case of Defendant D, even though they received the decision of seizure and collection of the claim for the joint and several liability based on the instant notarial deed from the Plaintiff twice as the execution bond, they did not raise an objection. Rather, on the premise that the joint and several liability exists, Defendant C and D have been partially repaid to the Plaintiff two times, and thus, Defendant C and D have implicitly ratified the joint and several liability obligations based on the instant notarial deed, and should be viewed as bearing the obligation under the substantive law.

Therefore, Defendant C and D are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 23,000,000 and the delay damages.

2) Defendant C and D’s assertion did not participate in the preparation of the instant notarial deed, and Defendant C and D did not confer the power of representation on the preparation of the instant notarial deed to Defendant B and H, and did not ratification the instant notarial deed. 3) Determination on the validity of the instant notarial deed and the certificate of seal impression can be recognized.