대여금
1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance is revoked.
2. The defendant shall be jointly and severally with the co-defendant D of the first instance trial.
1. According to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2-1, the first instance court co-defendant D borrowed KRW 50,00,000 from the plaintiff during the period from April 19, 2018 to May 3, 2018; D, around September 2, 2018, prepared a loan certificate with the purport that the Plaintiff shall be repaid the loan amount of KRW 50,000,000 by July 31, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as "the loan certificate of this case"). The joint and several sureties of the loan certificate of this case may recognize the fact that Defendant E’s name and signature are written in the column for joint and several sureties of the loan certificate of this case.
2. The plaintiff's assertion asserts that defendant E had jointly and severally guaranteed the debt owed to the plaintiff.
3. The authenticity of the judgment document may also be proven by the comparison of the penmatic or seal imprint and/or seal imprint, and the comparison of the penmatic or seal imprint and/or seal imprint shall be a matter belonging to the free trial of the fact-finding court, and where it is deemed that the penmatic or seal imprint or seal imprint or seal imprint of the document subject to proof of the document maker is the same, the authenticity of the document may be recognized unless there are special circumstances. In such cases, the court may, without without necessarily need to determine the sameness of penmatic or seal imprint by an appraisal, make a comparison of the document on the land.
(See Supreme Court Decision 95Da38240 delivered on December 12, 1997, etc.). According to the statement No. 2-1 and the result of the Financial Information Meeting on Company G, Defendant E’s penology stated in the loan certificate of this case and the written statement of the bank transaction application submitted by Defendant E to Company G around August 13, 2001, the above written statement can be recognized as identical to the written statement, and thus, the authenticity of the part of Defendant E out of the loan certificate of this case can be recognized.
Therefore, Defendant E is deemed to have jointly and severally guaranteed the debt owed to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, Defendant E and the Plaintiff jointly and severally paid KRW 50,000,000 to the date following the delivery date of the copy of the instant complaint, which is October 12, 2018.