beta
Text
1. The plaintiffs' obligations against the defendant amounting to KRW 4,700,000 under the credit transaction agreement dated February 28, 2003.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On February 28, 2003, at the Bank of Future Savings Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Bankruptcy Bank”), Plaintiff A is the debtor, Plaintiff B is the joint guarantor, and the maturity amount of the credit amount of KRW 4,700,000, maturity amount of KRW 400,000, annual interest rate of September 16, 2003, annual interest rate of KRW 29.20, annual application form, and credit investigation form were prepared with 34% per annum (hereinafter “the instant credit transaction agreement”), and the written agreement was accompanied by the Plaintiffs’ certificate of personal seal.
B. On April 30, 2013, the bankrupt bank was declared bankrupt by the Seoul Central District Court (Seoul Central District Court Order 2013Hau54 dated April 30, 2013), and the Plaintiff was appointed from the same court as the bankruptcy trustee of the bankrupt bank.
[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 through 4 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings]
2. In a lawsuit seeking confirmation of the existence of a monetary obligation on the market, if the plaintiff, who is a debtor, claims to deny the fact of the cause of the obligation by specifying the claim, the defendant, the creditor, bears the burden of proof of the requirement
(See Supreme Court Decision 97Da45259 delivered on March 13, 1998, etc.). In addition, barring any special circumstance, where it is recognized that a seal imprint affixed to a document is withdrawn by the seal of the person who prepared the document, the authenticity of the document is actually presumed to be based on the will of the person who prepared the document, i.e., the act of affixing the seal. On the other hand, when the authenticity of the seal imprint is presumed to be established, the entire document is presumed to have been authentic; however, if it is proved that the act of affixing the seal was done by a person other than the person who prepared the document, the document presenter is liable to prove that the act of affixing the seal was based on a legitimate title delegated by the person who prepared
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da37831, Sept. 24, 2009).