beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 50,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 20% per annum from September 5, 2013 to the day of complete payment.
Reasons
1. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. According to the result of appraiser C’s stamp image appraisal of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and Eul evidence Nos. 3-1 through 3 (the above documents were forged by Eul. However, according to the appraiser C’s seal appraisal of each of the above documents, it is recognized that the stamp image attached after the defendant’s name was based on the defendant’s seal imprint, and thus, the authenticity of each of the above documents is presumed to have been established as a whole). In full view of the whole purport of the pleadings, the plaintiff lent 50,000,000 won to the defendant (the trade name at the time of this transaction) represented by Eul until October 1, 201, under an agreement that the defendant would offer the defendant as security for one of the four houses located in Gyeonggi-do, Gyeonggi-do, as well as the plaintiff’s demand, and the defendant could recognize the fact that the above loan was not returned.
B. According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff delay damages calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from September 5, 2013, the day following the delivery day of the instant complaint filed by the Plaintiff with respect to the said money, along with the duty to return the borrowed amount of KRW 50,00,000,000, to the day of full payment of the borrowed money.
I would like to say.
C. In light of the fact that B, on behalf of the Defendant, without knowing the Plaintiff, borrowed money from the Plaintiff only as a certificate of corporate seal impression, and that it issued the Defendant’s corporate seal impression certificate with a certificate of confirmation affixed by the Defendant to the Plaintiff when B borrowed money from the Plaintiff on behalf of the Defendant, and that B, upon obtaining a notarized certificate from the Defendant, submitted the power of attorney with the Defendant’s discretionary seal impression affixed to the notary public, it is reasonable to deem B borrowed money from the Plaintiff on behalf of the Defendant. Therefore, the Defendant’s above assertion cannot be accepted.
3. If so, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.