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
Claim:
Reasons
1. The following documents are written in the name of the Plaintiff of the basic facts:
① The written investment agreement (Evidence A5) dated December 18, 2012: E borrowed KRW 200 million from the Defendant, and the purport of the Plaintiff’s joint and several surety is that the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 200 million from the Defendant.
② A notary public’s certificate No. 1812 (Evidence No. 7) dated December 18, 2012, 2012, No. 1812: The purport of the Plaintiff’s investment in KRW 200 million from the Defendant, paying 20% of L sales with profits therefrom, and the purpose of E’s joint and several guarantee.
E entrusted the preparation to the above notary public on behalf of the plaintiff.
③ No. 3336, Dec. 18, 2012, No. 2012, No. 3336, No. 3336, a notary public: The Plaintiff is an authentic deed of a loan of KRW 200 million against the Defendant, and the type of the obligation is stated as a loan. The purport is that the Plaintiff bears the burden, accepts compulsory execution, and is jointly and severally and severally guaranteed by E.
E entrusted the preparation to the above notary public on behalf of the plaintiff.
④ A notary public’s certificate No. 434 (Evidence A12) dated March 12, 2013, drafted on March 12, 2013, No. 2013: the purport of the Plaintiff’s investment of KRW 200 million from B, and payment of KRW 200 million from L’s private qualification certificates (excluding half-class expenses) with profits therefrom, and the purpose of E’s joint and several guarantee.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 5 through 7, 12 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant did not have any obligation of KRW 200 million (and interest) based on the monetary loan contract of December 18, 2012, since he was involved in the preparation of the documents or granted the power of representation to E, and that he did not have any obligation of KRW 200 million ( and interest) against the Defendant.
Although the plaintiff mentioned in the plaintiff's complaint No. 4's promise, it is not a document in the name of the plaintiff, and therefore, the issue of this case (whether the plaintiff bears the obligation of borrowing KRW 200 million to the defendant) is different from the issue of this case.