beta
Text
1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance is revoked.
2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant is dismissed.
3...
Reasons
1. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant is jointly and severally liable to pay the above loan amounting to KRW 10 million and its delay damages to the plaintiff as the defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the loan amounting to KRW 10 million to the plaintiff, and the defendant is jointly and severally liable to pay the above loan amounting to KRW 10 million to the plaintiff.
As to this, the defendant asserts that C prepared a certificate of money borrowing with respect to the loan of this case, and affixed the seal of the defendant to the joint and several sureties without permission and deliver it to the plaintiff, and since the defendant did not have jointly and severally guaranteed the above loan debt of C, the defendant cannot respond to the plaintiff's request on the premise that C is a joint and several sureties of the
2. The fact that the Plaintiff agreed to lend the instant loan to C on October 25, 2004 and transferred KRW 10 million to the deposit account in the name of the Defendant to C does not have any dispute between the parties.
Meanwhile, there is no dispute between the parties that the stamp image next to the defendant's name of the joint and several sureties in the document No. 1 (money tea certificate) is based on the defendant's seal, but in light of the following circumstances, which can be recognized by considering the entries in No. 1, No. 1, and No. 1, and the testimony and overall purport of the testimony and arguments of the party witness C as a whole, it can be recognized that C prepares at the plaintiff's request on October 25, 2005, one year after the above remittance, and affixs the defendant's seal on the defendant's name side of the joint and several sureties's column in the document for money tea certificate, so it cannot be used as evidence, and it is insufficient to recognize that the above facts alone are sufficient to recognize that the defendant guaranteed the debt of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.
① The obligor of the instant loan, as the Defendant’s external village, is operating a business with the name of “D” and registered as the Defendant.