beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. On February 13, 2013, the Plaintiff repaid KRW 200,000,000 to Nonparty B for the period of 25 months each month, and at least twice consecutively delayed, the Plaintiff lost the benefit of the period and extended interest at an interest rate of 20% per annum from the same day. On the same day, Nonparty C, the husband of the Defendant, entered into a joint and several guarantee contract with the Plaintiff to guarantee the above loan obligations under the name of the Defendant on the same day. There is no dispute between the parties.
2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant granted C the right of representation to conclude the above joint and several surety contract. 2) Even if the Defendant did not have the above right of representation, C, as the husband living together with the Defendant, has basically the right of representation for household affairs and had documents under the Defendant’s name, such as the Defendant’s seal impression and the certificate of personal seal impression at the time of concluding the said joint and several surety contract, and thus, there was a justifiable reason to believe C
3) Therefore, the Defendant is jointly and severally and severally liable with B to pay the Plaintiff interest or delay damages at the rate of 20 million won or 20% per annum from February 14, 2013 to the date of full payment, following the lease date, pursuant to the principle of representation by proxy or Article 126 of the Civil Act. (B) Although there is no dispute between the parties that C had the Defendant’s seal impression and the Defendant’s personal seal impression issued directly at the time of concluding the said joint and several liability contract, the fact alone is insufficient to recognize that C had the authority to conclude the said joint and several liability contract on behalf of the Defendant (this is likewise true even when considering the respective descriptions of evidence 2-2, 3, 4, and evidence 6-3, 6, and 7 as stated in the evidence 2-3, 6, and 7, respectively.
Since there is no other obvious evidence to acknowledge this differently, the plaintiff's assertion of the right of representation is reasonable.