beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s purchase price for the goods (2014Da14017) against the Plaintiff of Seoul Northern District Court on May 7, 2014.
Reasons
1. On April 23, 2014, the Defendant applied for payment order against the non-party company, B, and the Plaintiff for the payment of the goods under the Seoul Northern District Court No. 2014j. 14017, on the ground that the Plaintiff and the non-party company jointly and severally guaranteed the obligations of the non-party company, the Defendant supplied food materials to equipped companies (hereinafter “non-party company”) and did not receive KRW 71,487,150.
On May 7, 2014, the above court ordered the Defendant to pay the payment of KRW 71,487,150 as well as damages for delay at the rate of 20% per annum from the day after the original copy of the payment order was served to the day of complete payment. The Plaintiff did not raise an objection after being served with the above payment order on May 24, 2014. The above payment order became final and conclusive on June 8, 2014.
(hereinafter the above payment order of this case). 【The ground for recognition】 Gap 1-3
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The defendant asserts that the plaintiff jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation owed by the non-party company to the defendant on the ground of the evidence No. 1 (the same as evidence No. 1-1) of the non-party company Eul, and that the plaintiff did not jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation of the non-party company, and that there is no fact that the above document
B. The burden of proving the existence or establishment of the claim is against the obligee in the lawsuit of demurrer to judgment, that is, the Defendant in the lawsuit of demurrer to claim.
The testimony of the witness Eul 2 and Eul alone is insufficient to recognize the authenticity of Eul 1, and since there is no other evidence to prove this, Eul 1 cannot be used as evidence, and the remaining evidence alone is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff guaranteed the obligations of the non-party company against the defendant, and there is no other evidence to support this. Thus, the defendant's argument is without merit.
3. Accordingly, the plaintiff's claim is accepted on the grounds of the conclusion.