beta
Text
1. The Defendant is jointly and severally with C to the Plaintiff KRW 97 million and the Plaintiff’s interest thereon from December 16, 2013 to February 26, 2014.
Reasons
1. The parties' assertion
A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff lent KRW 100 million to the Defendant and C on June 14, 2013 by remitting KRW 100 million to the Defendant’s account under the name of the Defendant. As such, the Defendant is jointly and severally liable with C to pay the Plaintiff KRW 9.7 million, which is the balance of the loan, and the interest and delay damages agreed upon with C. Even if the act of borrowing money is an act of unauthorized representation by C, the Defendant was aware of the above loan and ratified it. As such, the Defendant is jointly and severally liable with C to pay the Plaintiff the interest and delay damages agreed upon with C.
B. The defendant's assertion C, without the defendant's permission, has affixed the name card of hospital C with the name of the defendant on the certificate No. 1 (the certificate) and affixed the defendant's seal, and the defendant did not borrow money from the plaintiff.
2. Determination
A. Comprehensively taking account of Gap evidence evidence Nos. 10 and witness D's testimony, it is not sufficient to recognize that Gap's authority to prepare Gap evidence Nos. 10 is granted to Eul, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that Gap evidence Nos. 10 and Eul's testimony is not admissible as evidence, since it is not sufficient to recognize that Gap's evidence Nos. 7 and 27 and the fact that Eul, other than the defendant, affixes the defendant's seal to the defendant's name, is recognized as being the fact that the name of the hospital mentioned in the defendant's name No. 1 (j) evidence No. 10, but the fact that Eul, other than the defendant, affixes the defendant's seal.
B. According to the statement No. 2 as to the validity of a monetary loan agreement, it is recognized that the Plaintiff remitted KRW 100 million to the account under the name of the Defendant.
However, the Plaintiff, who is not the Defendant, requested the Plaintiff to lend KRW 100 million (hereinafter “instant loan”), and the Plaintiff prepared and received a certificate of borrowing from the Defendant and C at the hospital where the Defendant and C were working, and remitted the instant loan.