beta
(영문) 제주지방법원 2016.12.16 2015가단3241

보증채무금

Text

1. Defendants A, B, C, and E are jointly and severally owned with the Plaintiff KRW 169,958,639 and KRW 59,354,484 among them.

Reasons

Judgment on the claim against Defendant A, B, C, and E

(a) Indication of claims: To be as shown in the reasons for the claims;

B. Ground of recognition 1) Defendant A, B, and C: Service by public notice (Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act) 2: Defendant E: Confession (Article 208(3)2 of the Civil Procedure Act) (Article 208(3) of the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the claim against Defendant D, the Future Savings Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Smi Bank”) made a loan to F on May 8, 2007 under the joint and several guarantee (hereinafter “joint and several guarantee”) of Defendant D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”).

Even if Defendant Company did not provide joint and several sureties of this case

Even at the time of lending to F, the future bank was granted the personal seal impression, name card, corporate seal certificate, board of directors’ meeting minutes, and all delegations of authority to entrust the preparation of a notarial deed directly issued by G, who is the representative director of the defendant company at the time of lending to F. It constitutes an expression representation by the indication of granting of power under Article 125 of the Civil Code.

Therefore, Defendant Company is obligated to pay the remainder of the F Loans and delay damages to the Plaintiff according to the joint and several sureties of the instant case.

Judgment

1) First, as to whether the Defendant Company entered into a joint and several guarantee agreement in this case, health expenses, Gap evidence Nos. 1 (a loan application), Gap evidence No. 8 (a letter of delegation in preparation of a notarial deed for money loan contract for security transferred for transfer), and Gap evidence No. 12 (a letter of credit transaction) cannot be used as evidence since there is no evidence to acknowledge their authenticity, and as there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, the above assertion by the Plaintiff is without merit. 2) Next, we examine whether the liability of expression representation in Article 1

The expression agency by the indication of power of representation as provided in Article 125 of the Civil Act is the nature of the basic legal relationship between the principal and the person who has performed the act of representation.