beta
Text
1. From May 17, 2014 to September 30, 2015, the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance, as to KRW 30,000,000 to the plaintiff.
Reasons
1. On March 20, 2012, the Plaintiff: (a) lent KRW 20,000,000 interest rate of KRW 500,000 per month (payment on March 17) to C; and (b) on March 20, 2014, the Plaintiff jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation to borrow money on behalf of the Defendant who is the husband.
On April 27, 2012, the Plaintiff additionally lent KRW 20,000,000 interest rate of KRW 500,000 per month (payment on May 27, 201) and the due date of payment on May 27, 2013 to C, and C guaranteed the above loan obligation on behalf of the Defendant.
[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (each loan certificate and the defendant's seal imprint part is presumed to have been authentic. The defendant defense that each of the above documents was forged by C. Thus, according to the result of the written appraisal by the court of the first instance, although C has stated the defendant's name in the guarantor or debtor column of the above loan certificate, it is acknowledged that C has stated the defendant's name as stated in the above loan certificate, but as seen in paragraph (2) below, the defendant delegated C with the right to guarantee the above loan obligation and delegated C with the defendant's name and affixed the defendant's seal impression. Thus, the defendant's above forgery defense is without merit), 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the borrowed amount of KRW 40,000,000 and delay damages therefor.
In this regard, the defendant asserts that C did not delegate the right to guarantee the above borrowed amount to C.
However, according to the evidence Nos. 6-2, 10, and 12, the defendant filed a complaint with the investigative agency to the effect that C had forged and exercised each of the above loans, but was subject to a disposition not to prosecute for the reason that “the credibility of the defendant’s accusation in light of the statement of C and D, which is his/her father and wife, is lowered.” The defendant filed an application for a ruling with the Seoul High Court, but the above non-prosecution disposition by the above court is unreasonable.