beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
Reasons
Facts of recognition
In light of the facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1’s overall purport of the pleadings, it is recognized that the plaintiff lent 2 million won to C at around 2010 with interest rate of 18% per annum and due date of repayment on December 28, 2010, and that the defendant guaranteed C’s above obligation.
Judgment
According to the above facts of determination on the cause of claim, the defendant is obligated to pay the remainder of the loan amount of KRW 1.7 million and delay damages from December 29, 2010, less the remainder of the loan amount of KRW 300,000,000,000, which the plaintiff was paid at the above loan amount of KRW 2 million, unless there are special circumstances to the plaintiff.
[Defendant asserts that the part of “2010....” in the period of reimbursement of the loan certificate No. 1 was altered in this court. However, if the signature or seal of the principal, who is the title holder, is affixed to a private document, the document is presumed to have been duly formed and the whole document is presumed to have been duly formed even in the case where other parts were disputed due to pencs, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Da4674, Nov. 10, 1995). The defendant bears the responsibility to prove the alteration (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Da4674, Nov. 10, 1995). Since there is no dispute over each part of the debtor C, guarantorD, and the defendant’s signature and seal, there is no evidence to deem that the whole copy of the loan certificate was altered as alleged by the defendant, and the alteration of the period of reimbursement does not affect the judgment of the claim in this case.] The defendant’s defense against the defendant, as to the defendant’s defense against the foregoing five year statute applies.
Since the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit more than five years after the due date, as long as the principal obligation became extinct by prescription, the Defendant’s guaranteed liability also expired by prescription.
. ..........