beta
Text
1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 300,000,000 with the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from May 1, 2018 to May 14, 2019.
Reasons
1. The parties' assertion
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was based on the Plaintiff’s certificate No. 2-1 supply contract, but the Plaintiff supplied Defendant B with 750 organic sets of KRW 300 million, but did not receive KRW 300 million, and the Defendant C Co. guaranteed the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay the price for the goods within the limit of KRW 300 million. Thus, the Defendants are jointly obligated to pay KRW 300 million and delay damages to the Plaintiff.
B. The corporate seal affixed on the certificate No. 2-1 product supply contract of Defendant B is not of Defendant B, but of Defendant B, and the representative director D did not prepare the part stating “I swear that I will pay in March 25, 2018,” and the part stating “I will pay in March 25, 2018,” which was signed at the bottom of Article 13 of the above contract, and there was no fact that I will accept E’s name in the item No. 2 of the certificate No. 2-2 transaction specification purchaser column or affix a corporate seal, and the corporate seal is not of Defendant B
Each of the above documents was forged, and the defendant corporation Eul was not liable for the payment of the price for the goods since it was not supplied by the plaintiff with the above goods, and the corporate seal affixed to the certificate of the payment guarantee agreement of No. 3-2 is not the defendant corporation B, and there is no guarantee obligation of the defendant corporation C.
2. The following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the facts without any dispute as to the cause of the claim, Eul evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 2-1, and Eul evidence No. 2-2, and the fact-finding with respect to Eul's representative director C/C in this court's fact-finding with the whole purport of the pleadings, the defendant Eul submitted the goods supply contract with Eul evidence No. 1, and Eul submitted the goods supply contract with Eul's evidence No. 1, and its content is consistent with Eul's goods supply contract with Eul's article No. 2-1, and Eul submitted by the plaintiff.