beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Judgment on the assertion regarding the conclusion of guarantee agreement
A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant's mother, at the request of C, lent 41,00,000 won to C in total from December 2, 2010 to March 10, 2012, and borrowed 40,000,000 won from C on March 15, 2012 as interest rate of 2% per month. The defendant received a certificate of borrowing, and the defendant affixed the certificate as guarantor on the same date. Thus, the defendant as C guarantor is jointly and severally liable to pay the amount stated in the claim to C to the plaintiff.
The defendant asserts that the plaintiff's claim is unfair since C does not have any seal affixed to C's loan certificate as the guarantor, and C has affixed C's seal without the defendant's consent.
(b) If the seal imprinted by the signature affixed on the document of determination is affixed to the signature affixed to the signature, barring special circumstances, the authenticity of the seal imprint shall be presumed to have been created, i.e., the intent of the signatureer, barring any special circumstances. Once the authenticity of the seal imprint is presumed, the authenticity of the entire document shall be presumed to
However, the above presumption is broken if it is revealed that the act of affixing the seal was done by a person other than the person under whose name the document was prepared, so the person under whose name the document was signed shall be responsible to prove that the act of affixing the seal was made by a legitimate title delegated by the
(2) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the admissibility of the Defendant’s seal, and exceeding the bounds of the legal principles as to the admissibility of the Defendant’s seal, and by misapprehending the legal principles as to the admissibility of the Defendant’s seal, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the ground that the Defendant’s seal is affixed to the Defendant’s seal on March 15, 2012 and the Defendant’s seal is affixed to the Defendant’s seal. In so doing, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench, except as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.
However, C affixed the seal of the defendant.