beta
Text
1. The Defendants shall jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 42.5 million and the interest thereon from October 25, 2018 to the day of complete payment.
Reasons
1. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire pleadings as to the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff leased KRW 50 million to Defendant C on April 28, 2015 by setting the interest rate of KRW 20% per annum and the due date of repayment on January 25, 2017, and Defendant D’s joint and several liability is recognized. As such, the Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of KRW 42.5 million per annum from October 25, 2018 following the date on which the duplicate of the complaint of this case was served to the date on which the copy of the complaint of this case was served to the date on which the Plaintiff was repaid.
2. Determination as to Defendant D’s assertion
A. As to this, Defendant D asserts that he did not have jointly and severally guaranteed the instant loan obligation of Defendant C, and that he/she did not have jointly and severally guaranteed the Defendant C’s loan obligation, Defendant D claimed that the relevant part of his/her name was authentic.
B. However, if the seal imprinted on a private document is withdrawn by his seal, barring special circumstances, the authenticity of the seal shall be presumed to have been made, i.e., by the will of the person in whose name the seal is written, barring special circumstances. Once the authenticity of the seal is presumed, the authenticity of the document shall be presumed to have been made in accordance with Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Act.
In addition, unless there are other special circumstances where the authenticity of the seal imprints is acknowledged, the document may be presumed to have affixed such seal by the person who prepared the document at the time of completion of the entire document, and the document was first affixed when the whole or part of the document was not completed at that time. Thus, there is a need for evidence such as reasonable grounds and indirect counter-proof to support the presumption of the authenticity of the document as a completion document.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Da226991, Jul. 14, 2016).
Therefore, the defendant D's seal affixed to the above transaction agreement is the one of his own.