beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff:
A. Defendant A Co., Ltd. and Defendant B shall jointly and severally act for KRW 93,455,500 and KRW 3,455,500 among them.
Reasons
1. Claim against Defendant A, Defendant C, Defendant D, Defendant F, Defendant H, and Defendant I
(a) Indication of claims: To be as shown in the reasons for the claims;
(b) Judgment on deemed confession (Article 208 (3) 2 of the Civil Procedure Act);
2. Claim against Defendant B and Defendant G
(a) Indication of claims: To be as shown in the reasons for the claims;
(b) Judgment by service (Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act);
3. Claim against Defendant E
A. As to the purport of the party's assertion that the plaintiff is responsible for the defendant as a joint and several surety for the indemnity of this case on the grounds that there is the defendant's name and seal in the joint and several surety column of the Limit Trade Agreement (No. 1-2), the defendant does not have any principal letter of the above Limit Trade Agreement, but has any other purpose. However, although the court, which was the director of the accounting division of the C Co., Ltd., has different seals and has different seals, the plaintiff's seal impression was transferred to the defendant, and the seal seal imprint was affixed to the above Limit Trade Agreement.
B. If the authenticity of the signature affixed on the document of determination is displayed by his/her seal, barring any special circumstance, it shall be presumed that the authenticity of the seal is created, that is, the act of affixing the seal is based on the will of the person who prepared the document. Once the authenticity of the seal is presumed, the authenticity of the document shall be legally presumed.
The presumption of the above is clear that the act of affixing a seal was conducted by a person other than the person under whose name the document was prepared. However, if it is proved by a person who submitted the document that the act of affixing a seal was based on a legitimate title delegated by the person under whose name the document was prepared, the authenticity of the document is recognized again (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da69686, Apr. 8, 2003). In this case, when submitting the evidence No. 5 (Delegation) and the plaintiff submitted it to K who is his employee, the defendant is the joint and several surety of the above Limit Trade Agreement.