logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원목포지원 2019.06.19 2018가단1559
보증채무금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 27, 2014, the Plaintiff was issued a cash custody certificate with the following content by the Defendant’s referring around March 2014:

(A) Cash custody certificate No. 1, hereinafter “this case’s cash custody certificate”): Amount of KRW 58,00,000: D (Payment Date: July 28, 2014: Debtor: B (where the corporate director E of a limited liability company is affixed on the next side): F guarantor: B (where the seal of the defendant’s name is affixed on the next side), the debtor shall reimburse the above amount at 2% per interest rate.

In addition, the cash custody certificate is automatically discarded when the bill is closed.

B. Promissory notes stated in the cash custody certificate of this case issued to the Plaintiff were rejected.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. (1) The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) on March 27, 2014, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 58 million to Limited Company E (hereinafter “Non-Party E”) at the maturity of payment on July 28, 2014 and at the rate of 24% per annum, and the Defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the foregoing loan obligations.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the remainder of KRW 43 million (= KRW 58 million - KRW 15 million) except for the remainder of KRW 15 million to the Plaintiff who was repaid to the Plaintiff by the Plaintiff.

(2) The Defendant’s signature and seal both of the Defendant’s assertion on the cash storage certificate of this case written or sealed by C, and the Defendant did not stand a joint and several surety for the Defendant’s loan obligations against the Plaintiff of Nonparty Company.

B. The cash custody certificate of this case, consistent with the plaintiff's assertion, cannot be used as evidence for the defendant, since there is no evidence to prove the authenticity of the certificate.

In other words, even according to the plaintiff's assertion, C signed the defendant's signature on the cash custody certificate of this case and affixed the defendant's seal.

The cash custody certificate of this case is issued with the defendant's signature or seal affixed by C, and this is related to this.

arrow