beta
Text
1. The defendant shall pay 38,268,819 won to the plaintiff and 24% per annum from November 29, 2008 to the day of complete payment.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On October 12, 2007, the Plaintiff extended a loan to C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) registered as the representative director, with the amount of KRW 50,00,000 (total of KRW 100,000,000) each month by 1,256,156 each month (total of KRW 2,512,312 each month) over 48 months in repayment method, with the amount of KRW 1,256,156 each month in installments, interest rate, 9.5% per annum, and delay delay rate of KRW 24% per annum.
(hereinafter “instant loan”). (b)
At the time of the instant loan, two copies of the loan agreement (No. 2, No. 1, 2, hereinafter “instant agreement”) were prepared, and the agreement in this case is written by B and D as joint and several sureties, and the seal impression of B and D is affixed thereon.
C. On October 19, 2007, two copies of delegation (No. 3-1, No. 2, and hereinafter “the letter of delegation of this case”) were drawn up, respectively, to E, to which the authority to prepare a notarial deed of a promissory note with the Plaintiff is delegated to E, respectively, at the face value of KRW 60,000,000,000, and for which the Plaintiff is the Plaintiff.
E Based on the power of attorney of this case, E prepared two copies of Promissory Notes Co., Ltd. C, B, D, date of issuance on October 19, 2007, par value of KRW 60,000,000, and date of payment at sight (hereinafter “the Promissory Notes of this case”) on the same day, and received notarial deeds in accordance with Articles 23918 and 23919 of the Certificate of 207 within the law firm's name.
(hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) d.
C Since November 29, 2008, the loan of this case was overdue, and the principal of the loan remains 38,268,819 won (total 76,537,638 won).
E. B died on March 23, 2011.
D et al.’s successors filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff to confirm the existence of the obligation with the Seoul Central District Court 2012Gahap15867.
The above court did not dispute between the parties that the defendant prepared the instant agreement and the power of attorney of this case. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the defendant was authorized to prepare the instant agreement and the power of attorney of this case on behalf of B and D, and it also held B and D liable for expressive representation and tort liability.