2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On October 11, 201, between the Plaintiff and C, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 70,00,000 to C with interest rate of KRW 3% per month, the first due date for repayment (25,000,000) on December 28, 2011, the second due date for repayment (25,000,000) on January 30, 2012 (20,000), and the third due date on February 28, 2012 (25,00,000) on February 28, 2012 (25,00,000). The Defendant Company drafted a certificate of borrowing (a evidence 1; hereinafter “the instant loan certificate”).

B. At the time of drawing up the loan certificate of this case, C signed and sealed the Defendant Company’s joint and several sureties for the above loan certificate.

C. The representative director of the defendant company is C’s father and wife.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant Company is a company actually operated by C, and is jointly and severally liable for the loan obligations of C under the instant loan certificate, and thus, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the above joint and several liability amount to the Plaintiff. Even if the Defendant Company did not have the right of representation as to the joint and several liability agreement of the Defendant Company, the Plaintiff had justifiable grounds to believe that C had a legitimate right of representation. Therefore, the Defendant Company is liable for the Plaintiff’s

B. 1) Determination 1) In a case where the seal imprint affixed to a document is reproduced by his/her seal, barring any special circumstance, if the authenticity of the seal imprint affixed to the document is actually presumed to have been created, i.e., the act of affixing the seal is based on the will of the person in whose name the document was prepared, and once the authenticity of the seal imprints is presumed to have been established, the authenticity of the document as a whole is presumed to have been established, but such presumption is broken if it is proved that the act of affixing the seal was made by a person other than the person in whose name the document was prepared, and thus, the person in whose name the document

I would like to say.

Supreme Court Decision 2009Da37831 Decided September 24, 2009