beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff:
A. Defendant A shall complete the payment of KRW 68,306,311 and KRW 25,436,664 among them from November 13, 2013.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. Defendant A obtained the following loans from creditor financial institutions, and Defendant B jointly and severally guaranteed the third loan.
B. Creditor financial institutions transferred the principal and interest claim against the Defendants to the Plaintiff, and notified the Defendants of the assignment of claims.
[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap 1 through 5 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination:
A. According to the above facts of recognition, barring any special circumstance, the Defendants are obligated to pay the Plaintiff the same money as the written order.
B. Defendant B argues that there is no fact of joint and several sureties, and that the seal affixed to the loan application form, written agreement (Evidence A5-2), written agreement for loan transaction (Evidence A5-3), joint and several sureties and written statement for payment (Evidence A5-4) are one’s own, but the writing recorded in each of the above documents is not one’s own.
If the authenticity of the seal imprinted by the seal imprint affixed on a private document is reproduced by the seal seal of the holder, barring special circumstances, the authenticity of the seal imprint shall be presumed to have been established, and once the authenticity of the seal is presumed to have been established, the authenticity of the document shall be presumed to have been established in accordance with Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Act.
However, such presumption is broken if it is revealed that the act of sealing was done by a person other than the holder of the title deed, or that it was done against the will of the holder of the title deed, or without being followed by the intention of the holder of the title deed.
If a person disputing the authenticity of a seal imprint proves that the authenticity of the seal imprint is established, that is, the act of affixing the seal is based on the intention of the person in whose name the document is written, the presumption of the authenticity of the seal imprint is broken, if he/she proves that it is doubtful.
In this case, Defendant B recognized that the seal affixed to each of the above documents was affixed by his seal, and thus the authenticity of the seal is presumed to have been affixed, and each of the above documents pursuant to Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Act.