beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal and the claim extended in the trial are dismissed, respectively.
2. This is due to the extension of claims for the costs of appeal.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. Co-Defendant C of the first instance trial (hereinafter “C”) subscribed to a fraternity operated by the Plaintiff as the owner of the fraternity, but did not pay KRW 36.6 million after the receipt of the fraternity, and thus, the Plaintiff paid it on behalf of the Plaintiff.
B. In the process, C prepared a cash storage certificate (hereinafter “instant cash storage certificate”) to the Plaintiff. The content was “28,835,000 won” that C would refund a certain amount of money (1.5 million won) every month from April 25, 2013, and the Defendant, who is an infant of C, intended to repay.”
C. The cash custody certificate of this case contains the name of the defendant as the guarantor and the seal affixed thereto. However, in fact, the defendant did not have the place at the time of preparation of the above cash custody certificate, and C affixed with the seal of the defendant.
[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence No. 1, and the purport of whole pleading
2. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. On the basis of the guaranteed liability, the Plaintiff confirmed the Defendant’s intent of guarantee by telephone at the time of the preparation of the cash custody certificate of this case, and thereafter, as if the Defendant knew of his/her guaranteed liability even after the lapse of his/her guarantee on October 2013, the Plaintiff asserted that the surety indication of the cash custody certificate of this case was made according to the Defendant’s intent, and that the Defendant is liable to guarantee C’s obligation.
In this case, there is no dispute between the parties that the cash custody certificate of this case was prepared by C and that the signature and seal of the guarantor column was not the defendant.
In addition, the defendant's intent to guarantee was confirmed by telephone.
There is no evidence that the defendant said that he had known about the guaranteed obligation.
Furthermore, C had the defendant's seal and entered the defendant's telephone number and resident registration number in the cash custody certificate.