beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.06.10 2015가단5346317

대여금

Text

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 62,479,607 and KRW 32,156,265 among them, from October 20 to the day of full payment.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 3, 2011, the Defendant purchased 24 tons of dump trucks and issued a certificate of personal seal impression, resident registration, resident registration certificate, family relation certificate, family relation certificate, value-added tax base certificate, closure certificate, resident registration certificate, copy of the driver's license, and copy of the passbook (hereinafter collectively referred to as "essential documents of this case") and a seal imprint to obtain a loan from the Solomon Savings Bank (hereinafter referred to as "Slomon Savings Bank") as collateral.

B. On May 3, 2011, the Nonparty bank and the Defendant entered into a loan agreement with 24.5% per annum, and with the loan period of 36 months equal to the principal and interest, but with the overdue interest rate of 36.5% (hereinafter “instant agreement”), and the Nonparty bank remitted KRW 5 million to the Defendant’s account in the name of the Defendant.

C. From June 3, 2011 to March 21, 2013, the Defendant remitted the amount of KRW 2,000 to KRW 1,975,00,000, in a non-party bank’s guidance.

On April 30, 2013, Nonparty Bank was declared bankrupt by Seoul Central District Court 2013Hahap46, and the Plaintiff was appointed as bankruptcy trustee.

E. As of October 19, 2015, the obligation under the instant contract remains in 32,156,265 won as principal and interest 30,4323,342 won.

[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1 (a loan application agreement, and the defendant's seal imprint part is presumed to have established the authenticity of the whole document because there is no dispute over the part concerning the defendant's seal imprint. The defendant asserts that there is no document prepared the above agreement, but the defendant delivered the essential documents and seal imprint to the loan broker to obtain a loan from the plaintiff. According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the defendant comprehensively delegated the right to prepare a loan agreement and affix a seal to the loan broker or the plaintiff's employee who received the above documents and seal imprint)