beta
Text
1. Defendant B shall pay 60 million won to the Plaintiff and 25% per annum from September 24, 2015 to the date of complete payment.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B
(a)as shown in the reasons for the attachment of the claim;
(However, the “creditor” is deemed to be the “Plaintiff”, and the “debtor” shall be deemed to be the “Defendant”.
Article 208 (3) 2 of the Civil Procedure Act (Judgment of Confession)
2. Determination as to the claim against the defendant company
A. The parties’ assertion that: (a) on July 20, 2010, the Plaintiff asserted that, prior to the bankruptcy, A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “A”) was declared bankrupt by the Gwangju District Court Decision 2012Hamhap1 on March 5, 2012; (b) loaned KRW 11 billion to Defendant B on July 20, 2010 (hereinafter “instant loan”); and (c) at the time, the Defendant Co., Ltd was jointly and severally and severally guaranteed the Defendant Co., Ltd.’s debt by preparing a letter of collateral guarantee (hereinafter “instant letter of collateral guarantee”); and (d) as such, the Defendant Co., Ltd is jointly and severally and severally liable with the Defendant Co., Ltd. to pay to the Plaintiff some of the above loans the amount of KRW 60 million claimed by the Plaintiff and its delay damages.
In this regard, the defendant company asserts that the letter of credit guarantee in this case was forged, and that there was no joint and several guarantee for the debt of the loan in this case by the defendant B.
B. 1) Determination 1) In light of the fact that the authenticity of a disposition document is recognized, unless there is any clear and acceptable counter-proof that the content of the document is denied, the existence and content of the declaration of intent in accordance with the content of the document should be recognized. In light of the fact that the authenticity of the disposition document is recognized, the existence and content of the declaration of intent in accordance with the content of the document cannot be recognized if it is proven that the document was forged and its authenticity is not recognized (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da34666, Sept. 6, 2002). If the stamp image of the preparing person affixed on the document is displayed with his/her seal, it is special if the document is affixed with his/her seal.