beta
Text
1. Nonparty F:
(a) Defendant B, C, and D shall be paid KRW 701,266,50, respectively, from F, and a list in attached Form.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff’s guarantee claim 1) The Plaintiff on April 19, 2007, G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”).
F) F, the representative director of the H District Housing Association, and G concluded an agreement with the Plaintiff to supply 1 bonds for an apartment complex of 32 square meters to the Plaintiff by registering the Plaintiff as a member of the H District Housing Association or by having the Plaintiff sell it voluntarily. In the event that the supply of the partnership apartment is impossible, G entered into an agreement with the Plaintiff to pay KRW 600 million to the Plaintiff. 2) G did not supply 32 square meters to the Plaintiff.
Accordingly, on January 16, 2008, the Plaintiff agreed to the effect that “G shall pay the Plaintiff the loan amount of KRW 600 million up to March 14, 2008, plus the interest calculated at the rate of 12% per annum from December 20, 2007 to the payment date.” The Plaintiff agreed to the effect that “F, the representative director of G, guaranteed the Plaintiff’s debt.”
B. On June 7, 2006, F of each sales contract between F and Defendant B, C, and D entered into each sales contract with Defendant B, C, and D to purchase each 1404.96/856 shares of the real estate listed in the attached Table No. 1 of the attached Table No. 779,185,000 (hereinafter “instant 1 contract”) and paid each 77,918,500 won for the same day to Defendant B, C, and D, respectively.
C. On July 7, 2006, F entered into a sales contract between F and Defendant E with a view to purchasing KRW 1,374,170,000 of the real estate listed in paragraph (2) of the attached Table No. 2 with Defendant E (hereinafter “instant secondary contract”), and paid KRW 137,417,000 as down payment to Defendant E on the same day.
[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including a Serial number, the defendants asserted that the authenticity of Gap evidence Nos. 3 (a 3) and Gap evidence Nos. 4-1 (a 4-2 and 3 cannot be recognized. However, according to each of the evidences No. 4-2 and 3, the authenticity of the entire document is presumed to have been established since the seal affixed to the above document is recognized to be by F's seal).