beta
Text
1. The Defendants jointly and severally against the Plaintiff KRW 40,00,000 and Defendant B with respect thereto from April 19, 2017.
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff, who incurred the Defendant’s loan obligation, lent KRW 40 million to Defendant B on March 16, 2012, and Defendant C’s joint and several sureties with respect to Defendant B’s loan obligation, may be admitted as evidence inasmuch as the document as the document as evidence No. 1-1 of the evidence No. 1-2 can be admitted as evidence as follows:
2. Evidence Nos. 2 and 2 may be recognized in accordance with the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments.
2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. As to this, Defendant B asserts that he did not borrow money from the Plaintiff, and that the certificate of money borrowed (No. 1-1) was forged.
B. In a case where it is recognized that the seal affixed to the person who prepared the document is a personal health book or a document, the document shall be presumed to have been affixed by the person who prepared the document, barring special circumstances, and once it is presumed to have been established as a whole in accordance with Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Act. Thus, it is presumed that the document was written without the intention of the person who prepared the document against the will of the person who prepared the document or without the intention of the person who prepared the document, and the probative value of the evidence proving the facts of the defense shall be presumed to be insufficient by the person who asserts it actively
(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Da82158 Decided November 13, 2008, etc.). C.
Defendant B: (a) delivered his seal imprint and a certificate of personal seal impression (No. 1-2) to Defendant C on the ground that Defendant C, an omitted, operated the business body of Defendant C; and (b) recognized that the seal imprint affixed on the said “money tea certificate” is based on his seal.
C. Therefore, barring any other special circumstance, the authenticity of the said “money car certificate” is presumed to have been established in accordance with the legal doctrine as seen earlier, and it is recognized that the said “money car certificate” was written by Defendant C without being based on the intent of the said Defendant.