beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Defendant is a non-profit organization (titled before the change: C Welfare Foundation) aimed at establishing and operating a sanatorium for older persons and a medical institution, and the Plaintiff had a relationship with D, which had been the representative of the above medical center at the time, since December 209, as a person who had worked as the director of the C Care Center operated by the Defendant from around December 2
B. D, on January 17, 2012, issued to the Plaintiff a written statement indicating that the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 108,694,000 from the Plaintiff (Evidence A 4-1, hereinafter “the instant loan certificate”) and the said loan would be held liable for civil and criminal liability if the loan is not repaid, as follows:
I confirm that D borrowed 108,694,000 won was borrowed from the Plaintiff and swear that the card price of KRW 15,000,000 shall be the top priority payment.
The card price shall be paid in full by January 30.
I would like to resolve the other amount than 31,694,00 won, deposit 20,000,000 won, and fund 10,000,000 won by February 20.
The termination of joint and several sureties will be solved by February 28, 2012.D on January 17, 2012.
C. The portion of the loan certificate of this case is signed and sealed by D. The left part of D’s name appears to be the registration number of C’s medical care center, and the stamp image indicated as C’s name, which is the name of C’s medical care center and D’s name, is affixed to the right part. The stamp image indicated as C’s welfare foundation prior to the Defendant’s change is affixed to D’s name.
The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against D and the Defendant and filed a claim for joint payment of the said loan. As D died on February 3, 2014 when the instant case was pending, the Plaintiff finally withdrawn the lawsuit against D’s inheritor on May 27, 2015 (hereinafter “the deceased”).
【Ground of recognition” has no dispute, and there are evidence Nos. 4 through 7, 10.