beta
(영문) 대전지방법원홍성지원 2020.08.21 2019가단32187

청구이의

Text

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

This Court was made on May 17, 2019 with respect to cases of applying for the suspension of compulsory execution under 2019 Chicago507.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On December 15, 2009, the Defendant borrowed KRW 50 million from D on December 15, 2009, and jointly and severally guaranteed by C.

B. As above, as joint and several surety, the Defendant signed and sealed C’s loan certificate (hereinafter “the loan certificate in this case”) as joint and several surety, and the Plaintiff also signed and sealed C’s loan certificate as joint and several surety.

C. Since then, the Daejeon District Court: (a) filed a lawsuit against Won and the Defendant and C seeking payment of KRW 50 million based on the loan certificate of this case (hereinafter “related lawsuit”); (b) on September 9, 2015, the conciliation was concluded that “C, Won, and the Defendant jointly and severally paid KRW 15 million to the Plaintiff by September 23, 2015; and (c) on November 20, 2015, the amount of KRW 500,000 shall be paid to the Plaintiff in 15 installments from November 20, 2015 to 20,000 won.”

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant protocol of mediation”) written in the above protocol of mediation is D.

On January 22, 2019, the Plaintiff subrogated to D for payment of KRW 38 million out of the obligations under the instant conciliation protocol, and thereafter filed an application for payment order seeking reimbursement of KRW 19 million, which is the half of the amount subrogated by the Plaintiff, jointly and severally guaranteed by Daejeon District Court 2019 tea61, with the said court, which was issued a payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”) on February 7, 2019, and the said order became final and conclusive around that time.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The part on the Plaintiff’s signature and seal of the loan certificate of this case as asserted by the Plaintiff was forged by E, who is the husband of C, by deceiving the Plaintiff’s seal imprint from the Plaintiff and signing it with the above seal affixed without permission from the Plaintiff.

Since then, as D has filed related lawsuits, C has tried to solve the problem to the plaintiff and participated in the court as the selected party.