beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 91,526,977 and KRW 71,623,342 among them, 24% per annum from September 6, 2014 to the date of full payment.
Reasons
1. Case summary
A. On August 8, 2012, the date of concluding a contract under the Defendant’s name, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement to the same effect as the attached Form (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the following purport: (a) the automobile model B, vehicle number B, vehicle price of KRW 68,80,000, estimated residual value of KRW 20,640,000, monthly rent of KRW 20,640, monthly rent of KRW 15,047,200, monthly payment date, 36 months, overdue interest rate of KRW 24% per annum; and (b) the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement to the same effect as the attached Form (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).
B. On November 15, 2012, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant that the instant contract was terminated if the lease was not paid on or before December 2012, and that the Defendant did not pay the lease fee.
C. On September 5, 2014, the Plaintiff received the vehicle indicated in paragraph (a) from the Plaintiff.
[Reasons for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to Gap evidence 5, purport of the whole pleadings]
2. Assertion and determination
A. In a case where it is recognized that the stamp image affixed on the document No. 1 (1) is the stamp image affixed on the document’s seal affixed on the document’s seal affixed on the document’s title holder, barring special circumstances, the establishment and sealing of the stamp image is presumed to have been made on the basis of the will of the title holder, and once the authenticity of the stamp image is presumed to have been made on the basis of the entire document’s authenticity pursuant to Article 329 of the Civil Procedure Act, barring special circumstances, the person who asserts that the document is forged is presumed to have been affixed on the document’s authenticity pursuant to Article 329 of the Civil Procedure Act. Thus, the person who asserts that the document is forged must prove that the above stamp image was affixed against the will of the title holder (see Supreme Court Decision 81Da684, Aug. 24, 1982) 2).
The defendant asserts that C used the seal of the defendant, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it, and the defendant's assertion is above.