beta
Text
1. The Defendants shall jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 153,270,00 and the amount shall be from May 30, 2015 to the full payment.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. A. Around April 21, 2015, D entered into a contract with the Plaintiff to acquire a stock company E (the Defendant company’s trade name prior to the change) that the Plaintiff owned all assets.
B. The trade name of E, a corporation, was changed to the Defendant Company on May 12, 2015, and Defendant C was appointed as its representative.
C. Around May 21, 2015, D changed the terms and conditions of the aforesaid underwriting agreement between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff; “The contract amount of KRW 303,270,000 for all the assets of the Defendant Company owned by the Plaintiff shall be KRW 150,000,000 among them, D shall pay to the Plaintiff, on May 25, 2015, and on June 5, 2015, D shall pay the remainder of KRW 153,270,00 to the Plaintiff by May 25, 2015; however, D shall pay to the Plaintiff the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 153,270,00 as the representative director, and written agreement to “an integrated transfer, acquisition, and payment rejection (verification of completion of transfer)” with the purport that D guarantees the said agreement.
[Grounds for recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 4-6, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The Plaintiff’s judgment on the cause of the claim is the cause of the instant claim, and the Defendants jointly agreed to pay KRW 153,270,000, out of the acquisition price of the said corporation, and thus, the Defendants asserted that they are obligated to pay the said money. However, the Defendants asserted that the Defendants, which were marked on the evidence A Nos. 1 and 3, incurred on the ground of the Plaintiff, were stolen and stamped by the Plaintiff, so they cannot comply with
First of all, with respect to the authenticity of the money borrowed (influence, Gap evidence 1) and the statement of performance of obligation (Evidence A 3) based on the takeover of obligation against the defendants, the fact that the defendants' seal is affixed to the above documents shall be presumed to have been authenticity of the whole documents, and there is no proof of the defendants as to the fact that the defendants' seal is affixed to the above documents, since the defendants are the persons, and that the seal is stolen differently from the record.
D This part of the defendants in the court.