beta
Text
1. Each appeal by the Defendants is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The representative director of the non-party company in the corporate register was registered in the name of Defendant B, who is a father of Defendant B, while running the company D (a mutual company E after the change; hereinafter “non-party company”) that manufactures and sells vending machines.
B. On September 15, 2005, the Plaintiff decided to purchase the 5-free vending machine from the non-party company for freezing KRW 38.5 million, and paid KRW 38.5 million to the non-party company. However, upon the non-party company’s failure to be supplied with the vending machine due to the circumstances, on February 10, 2006, the Plaintiff issued to the non-party company and the defendant C a letter (Evidence 3 of the No. 3 of the No. 3 of the No. 3 of the No. 3 of the No. 3 of the No. 3 of the No. 3 of the No. 3 of the No. 3 of the No. 3 of the No. 2006).
On November 21, 2006, a notary public made a notarial deed of promissory note (Evidence A No. 4) to the effect that a notary public recognizes compulsory execution as a law firm No. 1551 on April 30, 2006 with respect to a promissory note issued in the name of the Plaintiff (amount of KRW 38.5 million), the issuer, non-party company, Defendant B, and the date of payment (amount of KRW 38.5 million), which was issued in the name of the Plaintiff.
E. The Defendants paid 9.5 million won out of the above purchase price to the Plaintiff and were not returned to the Plaintiff is KRW 29 million.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 6, purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. As above, as to the cause of the claim, Defendant C prepared a written evidence No. 3, and Defendant B made a guarantee on the promissory note issued by the non-party company. In light of the Defendants and the non-party company’s relationship, the process of the issuance of the promissory note by the Plaintiff, and the fact that the Plaintiff was transferred KRW 9 million to the Plaintiff on 11 occasions from January 21, 2008 to April 29, 2013 (Evidence No. 7), it is reasonable to deem that Defendant B had the intent to guarantee the obligation to return the purchase price of this case, which is the cause of the said promissory note, as well.