beta
Text
1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance is revoked.
2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant is dismissed.
3...
Reasons
1. On September 12, 2013, the Plaintiff’s assertion and the Defendant’s mother C entered into a monetary loan agreement for lending KRW 20 million with C at an annual interest rate of KRW 36%, maturity on September 12, 2014, and on September 12, 2014 as of the date of payment of interest (hereinafter “instant monetary loan agreement”). At that time, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to sign and seal the loan certificate (Evidence 1; hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case”) stating the contents of the said monetary loan agreement, and to jointly and severally guarantee C’s above loan obligations.
Accordingly, the defendant delegated C with the right of signature and seal of the defendant, and C entered the defendant's name in the joint and several surety column of the above loan certificate and affixed his own seal next to it.
This constitutes an expression agent by the indication of granting the right of representation under Article 125 of the Civil Act, and thus, the defendant is jointly and severally liable with C to pay the above loan amounting to KRW 20 million and delay damages to the plaintiff.
2. According to the evidence evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 5, it is recognized that the Plaintiff entered into the instant monetary loan agreement with C on September 12, 2013, and the Defendant remitted KRW 120,000,000 to the deposit account in the name of the Plaintiff’s spouse, as interest, on July 15, 2013, 120,000 won, July 17, 2013, KRW 180,000,000 on July 19, 2013, and August 29, 2013.
However, there is no dispute between the defendant's name and the defendant's non-indicted 4-1 to 4-2, Eul's testimony and the whole purport of the argument as to the joint and several sureties's name on the loan certificate of this case, and in full view of the statement of Gap's No. 4-1 to 2-2, and Eul's testimony and the whole purport of the argument as to Sep. 12, 2013, as to the preparation of the loan certificate of this case on Sep. 12, 2013, it can be recognized that Eul without permission affixed his name on the defendant's name on the loan certificate of this case