beta
Text
1. As to KRW 1,882,100,000 among the Plaintiff and KRW 1,800,000 among them, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 1,80,000 from April 14, 2008 to March 28, 2017.
Reasons
The summary of the plaintiff's assertion as to the cause of claim was from around 2002 to the defendant who is the birth village, from time to time, and the defendant arranged the existing loan and agreed to pay the plaintiff the amount of KRW 1,800,000 on May 2, 2007 to April 13, 2008. On November 15, 2007, the plaintiff agreed to pay the plaintiff the amount of KRW 500,000,000 on November 15, 2007.
In addition, the Plaintiff lent KRW 68,100,000 to the Defendant on August 24, 201, and KRW 3,000,000 on November 25, 201, and KRW 11,00,000 on November 28, 201.
Therefore, the defendant is obliged to pay to the plaintiff the sum of KRW 2,382,100,000 and damages for delay.
The defendant asserts that the authenticity of No. 11 of the judgment on the claim based on the guarantee agreement (No. 11) of May 2, 2007 is not made with the seal of the defendant, and the defendant asserts that the seal affixed on No. 11 of the evidence No. 11 (hereinafter referred to as "the seal of this case") is not based on the seal of the defendant.
However, in full view of the following circumstances as revealed by the respective descriptions and the purport of the entire pleadings set forth in Gap evidence Nos. 10, 18, 19, 20, 21, 39, and 42 (including virtual numbers), it is reasonable to determine that the instant seal affixed with Gap evidence No. 11 is based on the Defendant’s seal known to the Defendant, and thus, the authenticity of the entire document is presumed to have been established.
The defendant's assertion is not accepted.
In Gap evidence No. 10 (S.), prepared between the plaintiff and the defendant, the same seal as the instant seal is affixed to the soundproof Walls Business Agreement, and the defendant's signature is written in the form of overlapped with the said seal, and the defendant recognizes that the above signature is made by the defendant's own pen.
The defendant asserts that the above seal has been affixed by a person other than the defendant after the signature was made first, but in case where the document is so authentic that it has been altered after the document was duly formed, the claimant for alteration has made.