beta
Text
1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for KRW 184,067,123 and KRW 144,00,000 among them, from October 14, 2016 to 35.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff, upon introduction by Defendant B, invested KRW 100 million in Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”), and received 5% of the last day of each month from June 30, 2015 as profits, and remitted to Defendant B KRW 40 million on April 30, 2015, KRW 25 million on May 4, 2015, and KRW 35 million on May 11, 2015, respectively.
B. On March 28, 2016, the Plaintiff and Defendant B entered into a performance agreement with the Plaintiff on the amount of KRW 15 million up to April 30, 2016, KRW 35 million up to May 30, 2016, KRW 190 million up to June 25, 2016, and KRW 150 million up to June 25, 2016, the Plaintiff and Defendant B paid the Plaintiff KRW 7 million monthly interest rate up to KRW 10 million each year from July 2016 (hereinafter “instant agreement”). The Defendant Company jointly and severally guaranteed the Defendant B’s obligation under the instant agreement.
C. Defendant B repaid to the Plaintiff the sum of KRW 5 million on July 1, 2016, KRW 5 million on August 29, 2016, KRW 15 million on October 13, 2016, and KRW 5 million on October 13, 2016 (hereinafter “each of the instant payments”).
[Ground of recognition] As to Defendant B: A’s assertion of confession (Article 150(3) and (1) of the Civil Procedure Act) that the Defendant Company had no dispute: Each entry of evidence Nos. 2, 8, and 12 (which includes a number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the overall purport of the pleading [this objection to the purport that the Defendant Company is forged by misappropriation of the name of the Defendant Company B’s corporate seal impression.
In a case where it is recognized that the seal affixed to a document is the seal affixed to the document, unless there are special circumstances, the establishment of the seal affixed to the document shall be presumed to have been made based on the will of the person under whose name the document is written, and once the authenticity of the document is presumed to have been made, the document shall be presumed to have been authentic. Thus, the person who asserts that the document is forged shall actively go against the will of the person under whose name the document is written.