beta
Text
1. The Defendants jointly and severally pay KRW 265,545,02 to the Plaintiff.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants.
3...
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On September 23, 2008, D Union lent KRW 2,380,00,000 to E with the due date set as September 23, 2011, and the Defendants jointly and severally guaranteed the above loan obligations.
B. On September 18, 2018, D Cooperatives transferred the above loans and joint and several sureties to the Plaintiff, and notified the transfer of claims to E at that time.
C. As of October 5, 2018, the balance of the loan as of October 5, 2018 is KRW 265,545,02 in total for interest and delay damages.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 11, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay KRW 265,545,02 to the Plaintiff.
B. Defendant B asserts that his signature and seal on the above loans cannot be memoryd as joint and several sureties.
However, there is no dispute between the parties that the writing of the signature stated in the letter of guarantee (Evidence A 2) for Defendant B as joint and several sureties is Defendant B, and the authenticity of the whole of the above letter of guarantee is presumed to have been established in accordance with Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Since there is no evidence to reverse the presumption, Defendant B’s assertion cannot be accepted.
C. Defendant C asserts that he did not place his signature and seal on the above loan obligations as a joint guarantor.
However, in full view of the description of No. 3 and the purport of the whole pleadings, it is recognized that the seal of the Labor Guarantee Certificate (Evidence No. 3) made by Defendant C as joint and several sureties is Defendant C, and thus, it is presumed that the authenticity of the above Labor Guarantee (Evidence No. 3) is established in accordance with Article 35
Since there is no evidence to reverse the above presumption, Defendant C’s assertion also cannot be accepted.
3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.