beta
Text
1. The Defendants jointly and severally agreed to the Plaintiff KRW 43,50,000 and 5% per annum from April 21, 2016 to August 29, 2018.
Reasons
1. According to the purport of Gap evidence No. 1 and the entire pleadings, Defendant B acknowledged that the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 43,500,000 as of August 20, 2015, and prepared a loan certificate to the effect that the said money was repaid in full from August 20, 2015 to April 20, 2016. At that time, Defendant C signed as a guarantor at that time.
2. The assertion and judgment
A. According to the facts of recognition, the above loan certificate is presumed to have been a juristic act as stated in the so-called disposal document, and barring any special circumstance, the Defendants, as the principal debtor and the guarantor, are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff 43,500,000 won of the loan and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from April 21, 2016 to August 29, 2018, the duplicate of the complaint of this case from August 29, 2018, which was served on Defendant B among the Defendants, as the principal debtor and the guarantor, to the Plaintiff.
B. Defendant B asserts to the effect that he does not have any obligation to repay the above money, since the Plaintiff received only the certificate of loan from the Plaintiff and did not lend the money as stated above, Defendant B did not have any obligation to repay the money.
However, each statement of Nos. 1 through 4 submitted by Defendant B in relation to this is only a specification of transactions prior to the preparation of the loan certificate of this case, and therefore, it is insufficient to form evidence that the above Defendant repaid the Plaintiff’s obligations to the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant did not actually lend money despite the loan certificate of this case. Thus, all of the arguments cannot be accepted.
C. Defendant C merely signed the instant loan certificate as a witness, who is not the guarantor, and the phrase “ surety” is later stated against the intent of the Defendant.