채무부존재확인
All appeals are dismissed.
Costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. As to the grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) on February 18, 201, based on its stated reasoning, the lower court determined that each of the above documents is authentic, on the grounds that it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff’s seal affixed to the confirmation document and the Plaintiff’s letter of loan transaction agreement on February 18, 201 was affixed by the Plaintiff’s intent, and that the agreement on loan of funds was written by the Plaintiff himself/herself.
Examining the record, the above determination by the court below is justifiable.
There is no error of exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or of misapprehending the legal principles on the authenticity of a disposal document.
2. As to the grounds of appeal by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “Defendant”) on the ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, determined that the document did not recognize the establishment of the authenticity, on the grounds that the quasi-loan contract for consumption as of January 1, 2012, attached the Plaintiff’s seal, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the act of sealing G was based on the legitimate title delegated by the Plaintiff.
Examining the record, the above determination by the court below is justifiable.
There is no error of exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or misapprehending the legal principles on the authenticity of a disposal document.
(2) As to the ground of appeal No. 2, insofar as the authenticity of the quasi-loan contract for consumption as seen earlier is not recognized, the lower court did not recognize that the Plaintiff entered into a quasi-loan contract with the Defendant on January 1, 2012 converting the amount of KRW 893,322,169 out of the unpaid feed amount of KRW 894,392,718 into the loan, and thus, determined that there is no loan obligation under the quasi-loan for consumption contract as of January 1, 2012 against the Defendant.