beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s payment order based on the loan payment order in Busan District Court 2019 tea7315 against the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On February 29, 2012, the Defendant lent KRW 50,000,00 to C, the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff, at interest rateing to KRW 750,000 per month, and due date for payment, on March 1, 2013 (hereinafter “instant loan”). The Defendant received a loan certificate from C as above (hereinafter “the loan certificate from February 29, 2012”).
B. On March 1, 2013, upon C’s request, the Defendant extended the repayment period of the instant loan by March 1, 2014, and again received the loan certificate, the repayment period of which has been extended by C (hereinafter “the loan certificate of March 1, 2013”).
C. Each loan certificate of this case is written as a joint and several surety by the Plaintiff, and the seal of the Plaintiff’s name is affixed to the name next to the Plaintiff.
The Defendant received a payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”) from the above court on April 18, 2019, to the effect that “the Plaintiff and C shall jointly and severally pay KRW 50,000,000 to the Defendant and/or delay damages therefrom” (hereinafter “instant payment order”) from the above court, as C did not repay the instant loan until the due date, and C received the payment order from the principal and the Plaintiff’s spouse on May 20, 2019, as C was served as the working place of C, and became final and conclusive on June 4, 2019.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 4, Eul evidence 3 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. From around 2012, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff had been in separate possession on the premise of a divorce between C and C, while the Plaintiff and C were in separate possession of the Plaintiff as a joint guarantor, they arbitrarily set up a seal on the Plaintiff’s name and affixed the seal on each of the loan certificates in this case.
Therefore, since each of the loan certificates of this case stated by the plaintiff as joint and several sureties was forged by C, compulsory execution based on the payment order of this case should not be permitted.
B. The defendant.