beta
Text
1. The Defendant (Appointed Party) and the designated parties jointly and severally agreed with the Plaintiff at KRW 200,000,000 and the designated parties on January 14, 201.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On July 14, 2004, the Plaintiff lent KRW 200 million to the Defendant (Appointed Party) under the name of Nonparty C (Appointed Party) on September 14, 2004, with the maturity of payment fixed on September 14, 2004, interest rate of 18% per annum, and interest payment date of 14th day
(hereinafter “instant loan”). (b)
C and the Defendant (Appointed Party) signed, on the same day, a notarial deed (No. 3; hereinafter referred to as the “notarial deed of this case”) on the loan of this case by a notary public No. 9934, 2004.
In the notarial deed of this case, the designated parties are written as joint and several sureties, and the defendant (appointed parties) entered as the representative of the designated parties as joint and several sureties, and the power of attorney is recognized by the power of attorney attached to his certificate of personal seal impression.
C. From July 14, 2006 to December 31, 2010, Defendant (Appointed Party) deposited KRW 300,000,000 per month of the interest on the instant loan from July 14, 2006 to the account in the name of Nonparty E used by the Plaintiff (i.e., KRW 200,000 】 interest rate of KRW 18 per annum ± 12 months).
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, 3, 4, Eul evidence 3 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination:
A. According to the above facts, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant (Appointed Party) as the principal obligor and the appointed parties as joint and several sureties are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff the principal of the instant loan amount of KRW 200 million and damages for delay.
B. The Defendant (Appointed Party) first asserted that Defendant (Appointed Party)’s right to enter into a joint and several surety contract of the instant loan obligation is not effective by unauthorized representation and the expression representation is not constituted, since the Appointed Party did not delegate his/her right to enter into a joint and several surety contract of the instant loan obligation to the Defendant (Appointed Party).
However, the above facts are based.
As set forth in the subsection.