beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 240,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from February 23, 2017 to the date of full payment.
Reasons
1. In a case where the establishment of judgment as to the cause of the claim is deemed genuine, the existence of a juristic act in its content must be recognized unless there are clear and acceptable grounds to deny its contents.
(See Supreme Court Decision 80Da442 Decided June 9, 1981, etc.). In light of the aforementioned legal principles, comprehensively taking into account the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement in No. 1, the Defendant’s son agreed to pay KRW 240 million to the Plaintiff on August 16, 2016, by August 30, 2016, and the Defendant’s joint and several debt guarantee against the Plaintiff.
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the above KRW 240 million and 15% interest per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from February 23, 2017 to the date of full payment, as the plaintiff seeks.
2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. The defendant asserts that C's above debt of KRW 240 million against C was incurred while operating the pharmacy, and that the defendant's liability should be mitigated since C's partner or the Plaintiff is also responsible for the operation of the pharmacy.
However, the plaintiff is not liable for damages against the defendant, but is liable for joint and several liability for the agreed amount. The defendant is a joint and several liability for C to pay the amount finalized by C to the plaintiff as 240 million won. Thus, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit without further review.
B. The defendant also asserted that he was deceiving by the plaintiff, but the content was notarized by being issued a document to the Dong office as well as the plaintiff's oral statement, and the loan certificate (Evidence A (Evidence A (Evidence 1) that served as the basis for the defendant's joint and several liability is not notarized, and there is no document issued by the Dong office with respect to the defendant.
The defendant.