beta
Text
1. The Defendants jointly and severally agreed with the Plaintiff KRW 30,00,000 and 5% per annum from December 31, 201 to February 24, 2015.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. Around November 201, the Plaintiff drafted a subcontract agreement with a two-way comprehensive construction company on the condition that the Plaintiff would receive a subcontract for electrical construction (hereinafter “instant construction”) from the contract price of KRW 1,8770,000,000 (including value-added tax) among the Ulsan Funeral Home and the furnal Construction Corporation (hereinafter “instant construction”).
B. On November 25, 201, Defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant A”) borrowed KRW 20 million from the Plaintiff to use the said money for the purpose of designating the said company. On December 30, 2011, Defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant A”) drafted a letter of loan with the intent of compensating the Plaintiff about KRW 1.5 times the amount of monetary damage and problem. Defendant B jointly guaranteed the Defendant Company’s obligation to the Plaintiff based on the instant letter of loan.
C. The Plaintiff did not actually receive a subcontract for the instant construction work, and did not perform the said construction work.
[Reasons for Recognition: Evidence Nos. 1 and 3, and the whole purport of the pleading [Defendant Company No. 2] was forged.
In light of the following facts: (a) at the time of the preparation of the loan certificate in this case, the representative director of the defendant company stated the above loan certificate in C as the representative director of the defendant company; and (b) the fact that the employee seal of the defendant company is affixed to the loan certificate in this case on behalf of the defendant company C; and (c) the plaintiff asserted that the defendant B, a director of the defendant company, affixed the employee seal to the loan certificate in this case on behalf of the defendant company C; (b) the defendant company was the former representative director of the defendant company; and (c) the defendant company was the internal director of the defendant company at the time of the preparation of the loan certificate in this case and until now, the loan certificate in this case can be deemed to have been duly prepared;