beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 105,190,670 as well as 6% per annum from March 1, 2016 to December 18, 2017 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. In 2013, the Plaintiff and C entered into a joint agreement with a company that mainly engages in bowling Gingginging construction business, soil construction business, etc. to divide the profits therefrom, and established the Defendant Company in accordance with the said joint agreement.
B. Since then, C had registered itself as the manager of the Defendant Company, and practically operated the Defendant Company. Since March 2014, C did not timely settle the profits accrued from the business activities of the Defendant Company to the Plaintiff from March 2014, as well as the expenses that the Plaintiff paid on behalf of the Defendant Company were not paid.
C. Accordingly, on July 2, 2015, the Defendant Company confirmed at the Plaintiff’s request that the Plaintiff settled the amount of KRW 61,218,382, and agreed to pay the said amount as soon as possible as possible with construction gains (Evidence A2). On November 18, 2015, the Defendant Company confirmed that it borrowed KRW 10 million from the Plaintiff on September 2, 2015, in addition to the amount stated in the above loan certificate ( KRW 61,218,382), and confirmed that it borrowed KRW 33,972,288, in addition, borrowed KRW 33,972,28, and prepared a loan certificate (Evidence A4) with the agreement to repay the said amount by February 2, 2016.
[In accordance with the result of appraisal of the appraiser D’s seal impression, since it is recognized that the stamp image of the defendant company affixed with Gap’s Nos. 2 and 4 (Evidence) was based on the defendant company’s seal impression, the authenticity of the whole of the above documents is presumed to have been established. In this regard, although the defendant company asserted that each of the above documents was forged by the plaintiff, the evidence submitted by the defendant company alone is insufficient to recognize it, and no other evidence to recognize it exists. 【Ground for recognition’s absence of any dispute, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5 through 16, and 1, Eul’s evidence No. 1, 1, 4, 5 through 16, and
2. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant company.