beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.02.06 2016가단15431

대여금

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 38,00,000 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate from April 5, 2016 to February 6, 2017.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On July 30, 2005, the Defendant issued and delivered a loan certificate stating that it borrowed KRW 10,000,000 from the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the first loan certificate”) to the Plaintiff. On March 21, 2006, the Defendant issued and delivered the loan certificate stating that it borrowed KRW 8,000,000 from the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the second loan certificate”).

B. On March 22, 2006, the Defendant issued and delivered to the Plaintiff a certificate of borrowing KRW 30,000,000 from the Plaintiff with himself and C as a joint borrower (hereinafter “third-party certificate”).

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1-1-3, purport of whole pleadings]

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of claim, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff a loan and damages for delay arising from the third evidence, unless there are special circumstances.

B. The judgment of the defendant's assertion (1) is C, a person who actually borrows money from the plaintiff's summary of the defendant's assertion, and C requests the plaintiff to prepare a loan certificate in the name of the defendant through the defendant, and the plaintiff prepared a first or third certificate, and the plaintiff's loan claim under the first or third certificate expired by prescription.

Even if a loan obligor based on the first to third evidence, the defendant is the defendant, the defendant was granted immunity from the Seoul Central District Court on December 18, 2012, and the effect of immunity is limited to the loan obligation against the plaintiff, so the plaintiff's claim is unjust.

(2) (A) First of all, we examine the argument that the debtor in question is C.

The Supreme Court Decision 200Hun-Ga48 delivered on October 13, 200, held that in a case where the authenticity of a dispositive document is recognized, the existence of a juristic act, which forms the content, should be recognized unless there are special circumstances to the contrary, clearly and acceptable as to the existence and content of the declaration of intent indicated in the document.