beta
Text
1. The Defendants jointly and severally agreed with the Plaintiff KRW 65,863,272 and 5% per annum from October 1, 2010 to December 26, 2013.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. 1) On June 15, 2008, the Plaintiff received a certificate of borrowing (Evidence 1) from Defendant B that the Plaintiff would lend money to Defendant B and that the Plaintiff would pay KRW 50 million of the borrowed money by December 13, 2008. 2) D would lend money to Defendant B, and around June 15, 2008, receive a certificate of borrowing (Evidence 2) that the Plaintiff would pay KRW 260 million of the borrowed money by December 13, 2008.
The plaintiff, the introduction, guaranteed the above obligation to Defendant B D.
B. Defendant C, the wife of Defendant B, extended a loan to Defendant B and introduced D around August 30, 2010, to the Plaintiff who introduced D.
The loan amount of KRW 30 million (the total amount of KRW 50 million loan and KRW 260 million loan) and interest thereon was added to the loan amount of KRW 30 million (the total amount of KRW 50 million loan and KRW 260 million loan) until September 2010.
In addition, when Defendant C does not perform the promise, the principal registration based on the provisional registration was made on the Nam-gu E Forest (hereinafter “instant forest”) at the port of port equivalent to KRW 200 million owned by Defendant C, and the Defendant B, along with F, jointly and severally guaranteed the remainder of KRW 150 million out of the above KRW 350 million.
C. On December 2010, the Plaintiff recovered KRW 200 million out of the total amount of KRW 350 million through the sale of the instant forest land.
In addition, the Plaintiff additionally recovered KRW 84,136,728 through a voluntary auction against G apartment 105,302, Defendant C (hereinafter “instant apartment”).
[Ground of recognition] The Defendants alleged that there was no dispute, Gap 1, 2, and Gap 3 were forged, but the following:
2.(a)
As seen in this subsection, each entry of Gap 4, 5, and Gap 7-4, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. The Defendants’ assertion that the authenticity of the commitment (No. 3) is established, and the Defendants’ assertion that the Defendants’ commitment (No. 3; hereinafter “instant commitment”) was forged, should first be examined.