beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant loaned a loan agreement on the vehicle purchase fund loan agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant with each of the amount of KRW 18.6 million on March 18, 2008, KRW 18.6 million on March 20, 2008, KRW 18.6 million on the same day, KRW 18.6 million on the same day to each of the loan period of KRW 36 months, interest rate of 8.25%, and late 24% on condition of 36 months, interest rate of 8.25%, and late 2008.
B. The Defendant prepared a loan agreement with the Plaintiff for each of the above car purchase funds, and possessed C’s seal impression certificate, certificate of personal seal impression, resident registration certificate, and certificate of tax payment by local tax item, etc., and responded to the Plaintiff’s request as C around that time.
C. After that, C filed a complaint against the Defendant on charges of forging private document and uttering thereof. However, around March 30, 2010, the Seoul Western District Prosecutors' Office stated that "(i) the Defendant (the Defendant) obtained C’s consent to provide joint and several surety for vehicle loans from the wife of C, and submitted a resident registration certificate, local tax payment certificate, etc. to Hyundai Capital, and as a matter of course, D was aware that it was subject to C’s consent. (ii) the above documents are not issued at will. Thus, they correspond to the suspect’s statement that D was issued directly with the knowledge that D was used for the loan. (iii) The results of the first instance judgment impossible were followed by the second prosecutor, but even if D was absent from the office, there was no evidence to acknowledge the crime of forgery and uttering, on the grounds that it was true, and there was no evidence to acknowledge the crime of forgery and uttering."
Before July 2009, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against C as to the claim for the amount of the guaranteed debt by Seoul Central District Court 2009Da2045953, but the said court dismissed the claim on January 21, 2010, and the said judgment became final and conclusive as it did not appeal by the Plaintiff.
recognized.