beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.07.18 2016재가단116

대여금

Text

1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the defendant;

purport, purport, and.

Reasons

1. The following facts are apparent in the record of the judgment subject to a retrial.

On September 11, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a loan claim lawsuit against the Defendant, and was sentenced to the judgment subject to a retrial accepting the Plaintiff’s claim on October 23, 2013.

(Seoul Central District Court 2012da345851). The decision subject to a review was finalized on November 14, 2013.

2. Whether there is a ground for retrial

A. (1) In the case subject to review, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff had conducted litigation with the intention of D, the real right holder of the loan claim, in substance, as D’s representative.

However, there is no evidence that the plaintiff has been granted the power of attorney from D.

This constitutes a ground for retrial under Article 451(1)3 of the Civil Procedure Act when there is any defect in granting a legal representation right, powers of attorney, powers of attorney, or authority necessary for the procedural acts by a representative.

The defendant's above assertion is premised on the plaintiff's performance of litigation as his representative.

However, in the case subject to reexamination, the plaintiff did not act as a representative but as a party himself/herself, and did not perform a litigation by gathering the name of D.

The defendant's above assertion does not meet the premise of facts, and therefore is without merit.

B. Article 451(1)6 main text of the Civil Procedure Act (Counterfeit or alteration of a document) (Article 451(1)6 of the judgment subject to a review by the defendant is based on the judgment on the loan payment agreement (Evidence A1) and a promissory note (Evidence A2). The plaintiff lent KRW 65 million to C upon the defendant's introduction. The defendant and C signed a blank note issuer's column and entered the plaintiff's name in the payee's column.

However, the above evidence was forged against D's will after the Plaintiff received originals from D, and recorded the name of the Plaintiff in the creditor column and the recipient column.