beta
Text
The defendant's KRW 113,390,700 for the plaintiff and its 6% per annum from August 1, 2018 to November 26, 2020.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff is an individual entrepreneur, who runs wholesale and retail business, such as malicious and miscellaneous, with the trade name of “C,” supplied D Co., Ltd. with goods, such as kickboards, pande, and rackter, from April 26, 2018 to June 11, 2018.
B. On July 17, 2018, D Co., Ltd. repaid 143,457,000 won to the Plaintiff by July 31, 2018, and the Defendant and E drafted a certificate of performance that jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation to pay for the goods to the Plaintiff.
(hereinafter “Written Confirmation of Payment”). 【No dispute exists, entry of Gap 1-4 evidence, the purport of the entire pleadings.”
2. Determination:
A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 113,390,700 (i.e., the amount of claim KRW 117,390,700, which is the amount of KRW 4,000,000, which is the person who received reimbursement from E) and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 12% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, which is the date following the date of payment, to August 1, 2018, which is deemed reasonable for the Defendant to dispute over the existence and scope of the above obligation.
B. The defendant's assertion 1) The defendant asserts that the content of the written confirmation of performance of this case is not acceptable since it was sealed and sealed without knowing the contents of the written confirmation of performance of this case. However, a written disposition that is deemed to be authentic should be recognized as the existence of a juristic act in its contents unless there exist clear and acceptable grounds (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 80Da442, Jun. 9, 1981). The instant written confirmation of performance of this case is a disposal document that recognizes the fact that the defendant guaranteed the above goods payment obligation to the plaintiff. The evidence submitted by the defendant alone is insufficient to deny the contents of the written disposition.