beta
Text
1. The Defendants jointly and severally agreed with the Plaintiff KRW 100,000,000 and 5% per annum from January 16, 2015 to September 4, 2015.
Reasons
1. The plaintiff, as to the plaintiff's claim, opened No. 100,000,000 won in a way of lending KRW 47 million to Defendant B, his/her father, and then withdrawing 17,000,000 from the deposit money for lease on a deposit basis of the building lease contract and the deposit money for lease on a deposit basis, etc. The defendant C, who is a fraud, jointly and severally guaranteed the above loan's obligation, and the defendant C, who is a fraud, jointly and severally guaranteed the above loan's obligation, sought payment of KRW 100,000 to the defendants.
According to the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and No. 3, which acknowledge the name and seal of Defendant B, Defendant B borrowed KRW 100,000 from the Plaintiff.
Although Defendant C did not have affixed the name and seal on the certificate of loan No. 3, in full view of the circumstances that the above loan was used by the Defendants as a deposit for lease on a house of the above building E, and concluded a lease agreement under Defendant C, and the circumstances that the Plaintiff possessed, and that Defendant C did not have any objection to the fact that the joint and several surety was offered to the Plaintiff after preparing the above certificate of loan, Defendant C is deemed to have prepared the above certificate of loan under the agreement of the Defendants. Thus, Defendant C can recognize the fact that the above loan was jointly and severally guaranteed by Defendant C as to the above loan obligation.
Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay KRW 100,000 to the Plaintiff.
2. The Defendants asserted as to the Defendant’s assertion that “The Maspbook opened a store of “H” with the Plaintiff’s capital of KRW 100 million from the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff was in charge of the said F and deposited with Defendant B and withdrawn the money from the said passbook for the purpose of paying the funds. Therefore, Defendant B did not borrow the money, and the Plaintiff was forced to use the loan certificate by forcing and threatening the Plaintiff to use the loan certificate as the loan certificate No. 3.”
In this regard, the Defendants’ assertion and assertion.