대여금 등
1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.
Purport of claim and appeal
1.
1. The grounds for appeal by the Defendants cited in the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows: ① the money paid to the Defendant church is not a loan, but a unconstitutional amount (related to a claim for a loan to the Defendant church); ② there was no fact that the Defendants requested the Plaintiff to provide joint and several sureties (related to a claim for a prior reimbursement against the Defendant church); ③ Defendant church did not have the act of deception by Defendant D in the course of receiving the money in the name of donation or loan from the Plaintiff (related to a claim for damages due to a tort against Defendant D), and all of the evidence presented at the court of first instance are identical to the allegations in the court of first instance. In full view of all the evidence
Therefore, the reasons for this court’s reasoning are as follows, except for the determination under paragraph (2) below with respect to the defense of forgery of a loan certificate which the Defendants asserted additionally in the court of first instance, and therefore, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the
(The portion concerning the co-Plaintiff B in the first instance trial is separated and confirmed as seen earlier, excluding the corresponding portion). 2. Additional decision
A. Each loan certificate (No. 30-2, 3) submitted by the plaintiff on the grounds of the plaintiff's assertion of loan is not prepared by the defendant church, but forged. Therefore, the above loan certificate cannot be used as evidence for the plaintiff's assertion of loan.
B. The authenticity of the judgment document may be proved by the comparison of the penmatics or seal imprinters, and the comparison of the penmatics or seal imprinters is a matter belonging to the free trial of the fact-finding court, and where it is deemed that the penmatics or seal imprinter of the document is the same as the penmatics or seal imprinter of the document, the authenticity of the document may be recognized unless there are special circumstances. In this case, the court shall, by means of an appraisal, make a comparison of the document without the same determination of penmatics, seal imprints, etc.