beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On September 9, 201, the Solomon Savings Bank Co., Ltd. extended a loan with a maturity of KRW 54,000,000 at the rate of KRW 24.9% per annum on September 20, 2014 (hereinafter “the instant loan”).
B. Solomon Savings Bank was declared bankrupt on April 30, 2013, and the Plaintiff was appointed as bankruptcy trustee.
2. Determination
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Since the Defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the loan at the time of the instant loan, the Defendant ought to pay the Plaintiff the principal and interest in default of the instant loan. 2) Even if the Defendant did not guarantee the instant loan, the Plaintiff issued a certificate of personal seal impression, etc. issued directly by the principal at the time of the instant loan. As such, the Defendant should be held liable pursuant to the expression representation under Article 125
B. According to Article 3(1) of the Special Act on the Protection of Suretys (hereinafter referred to as the "Surety Protection Act"), the guarantee has the effect that the doctor bears the name and seal or signature of the guarantor, and considering the whole purport of the arguments as a result of the written appraisal of Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1 and the written appraisal of appraiser Eul evidence No. 1, it is not sufficient to acknowledge that the defendant's signature and seal or signature was written with the signature and seal or signature affixed by other person than the defendant. Thus, each statement of evidence No. 1 through No. 6 is insufficient to acknowledge that the defendant's signature and seal was written with the signature and seal or signature affixed by the other person. If the true intent of the guarantor is not expressed by a legitimate method, there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and if the guarantor's signature and seal is not expressed by the legitimate method, the expression of intent of guarantee under Article 3(1) of the Surety Protection Act can not be established
3. Conclusion.