보증채무금
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff as to the defendant B, which constitutes the following amount of payment:
1. Determination as to the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant B
A. As of July 1, 2008, Defendant B, from around 2007, was recognized as the balance of the borrowed money as of July 1, 2008 (A) and Defendant B, from around 2007, borrowed money from the Plaintiff from time to time in order to expand the business of door-to-door distribution.
B) On July 1, 2008, Defendant B: (a) written statement on July 1, 2008, stating that “Defendant B shall verify that it borrowed KRW 100 million from the Plaintiff, and promised to pay interest to the Plaintiff by the end of each month” (hereinafter “each monetary car certificate of this case”).
) The Plaintiff prepared and delivered the document to the Plaintiff. [Grounds for recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence 1-1-2 (hereinafter number omitted) (each monetary tea certificate, defendant B, each of the instant monetary tea certificate, without the consent of defendant B, is forged.
If the stamp image of the person in whose name the signature is affixed on the private document is affixed to it, barring special circumstances, it is presumed that the authenticity of the stamp image is based on the will of the person in whose name the document is prepared, and once the authenticity of the stamp image is presumed, the authenticity of the document is presumed to be established in accordance with Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Act.
In addition, the existence and content of the declaration of intent in accordance with the contents of the document should be recognized, unless there is any clear and acceptable reflective evidence that denies the contents of the statement in the document where the authenticity is recognized.
In addition to the contents of evidence Nos. 1 and 3, the whole purport of the pleadings is added (the defendant B only contests the part of the guarantee of the defendant C as stated in each of the instant monetary teas in the process of the pleadings in the first instance trial, and did not explicitly dispute the fact of preparing the monetary teas itself). The defendant B’s seal affixed on each of the instant monetary teas can be recognized as being reproduced by the seal of the defendant B. Thus, the said monetary teas are authentic.