beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s compulsory execution against the Plaintiff is KRW 15,00,000, based on the payment order (Seoul Central District Court 2012 tea83221).
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Defendant filed an application for the payment order against the Plaintiff and C with the Seoul Central District Court 2012 tea8321, stating that “The Plaintiff and C shall jointly and severally pay 15 million won and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from October 1, 2011 to the date of full payment” (hereinafter “instant payment order”), and the said payment order was finalized on January 4, 2013.
B. On May 15, 2011, the Defendant borrowed KRW 15 million from the Defendant, and held the loan certificate (hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case”) as of May 15, 201, stating that the Defendant would repay the above amount by September 30, 2011. The Defendant stated “A” to the joint and several surety column on the above loan certificate, and then is enclosed.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The plaintiff asserted that when the defendant applied for the payment order of this case, the plaintiff submitted the loan certificate of this case, and the name of the plaintiff was written by C and the above loan certificate was forged because he did not have affixed a seal, and since he did not have borrowed from the defendant, compulsory execution based on the payment order of this case should not be denied.
In this regard, the defendant asserted that although the plaintiff's name stated as the beneficiary of the loan of this case was stated C, that the plaintiff borrowed 15 million won with C or 15 million won was jointly and severally guaranteed by the plaintiff, the plaintiff's claim of this case is groundless.
B. We examine whether the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 15 million from the Defendant or jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation of KRW C.
First, there is no evidence to acknowledge the authenticity of the evidence No. 2 corresponding thereto, and the fact that C entered the name of the plaintiff in the joint and several sureties is no dispute between the parties, and C is this.