beta
(영문) 대구지방법원 2016.09.28 2016나301545

약정금

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

A judgment on the cause of a claim is presumed to have been made based on the overall document No. 1 (the document is presumed to have been authentic, since there is no dispute over the part concerning the defendant's seal impression, and the defendant's seal impression is presumed to have been created. The defendant, a representative director, at the time, prepared and forged a loan certificate without authority with D and D. However, since the representative director has the right to externally represent the company, the defendant's defense that C forged the document without authority is not in itself reasonable in light of the overall purport of the entries and arguments in the evidence Nos. 15,00,000, and the period of payment is set as Oct. 31, 2012, the plaintiff lent the document to E and lent the debt borrowed from the above E on behalf of the defendant (hereinafter referred to as "joint and several guarantee contract of this case").

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff 15,00,000 won and its interest rate of 20% per annum from November 1, 2012 to November 25, 2014, the delivery date of the original copy of the instant payment order, under the joint and several guarantee contract of this case; Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings until September 30, 2015; Article 3(2) of the Addenda to the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings (Presidential Decree No. 26553, Sept. 25, 2015) (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26553, Sep. 25, 2015); Article 3(1) of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26553, Sep. 25, 2015). 205

The defendant's assertion is judged as to the defendant's joint and several sureties contract of this case, unlike the evidence No. 1 (the evidence No. 1).