보증채무금
1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 48,00,000 for the Plaintiff and KRW 12% per annum from January 1, 2013 to July 16, 2018; and (b).
On December 31, 2012, when the repayment is delayed, the Plaintiff leased KRW 48,00,000 to E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) on June 1, 2012 by setting the due date to pay interest in arrears at the rate of 12% per annum. At the time, the Defendant was registered as the representative director, and the Defendant’s name was stated in the column of joint and several sureties of the monetary loan contract made between the Plaintiff and E, and the fact that the Defendant’s name was stated in the column of joint and several sureties of the monetary loan contract made between the Plaintiff and E, and the seal affixed by the Defendant’s seal may be recognized by comprehensively taking into account each of the statements in subparagraphs 1 and 2, and the purport
If the stamp image of the holder of a title deed signed and sealed on a private document is reproduced by his/her seal, barring special circumstances, it is presumed that the authenticity of the stamp image is created, i.e., the act of sealing is based on the will of the holder of the title deed. Once the authenticity of the stamp image is presumed, the authenticity of the document is presumed to have been made in accordance with
According to the above facts in light of the above legal principles, since there is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that the stamp image affixed on the joint and several surety column of the above monetary loan contract is based on the seal of the defendant, the authenticity is presumed to be established. The disposal document must recognize the existence and content of the declaration of intent in accordance with the contents of the document, unless there is any clear and acceptable counter-proof that the contents of the document are denied if the authenticity is acknowledged. Thus, the defendant, a joint and several surety of the above loan contract, is liable to pay the plaintiff 48,00,000 won and damages for delay,
In regard to this, the defendant asserted that the F, the husband of the defendant, only operated the company as the actual operator of E, and the defendant did not participate in the operation of E, and that he became aware of the joint and several liability through the filing of the lawsuit in this case. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge such assertion
In addition, the defendant shall raise objection.