beta
(영문) 대전지방법원 2019.10.30 2018가단22357

대여금 등

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. Upon receipt of a request from C to lend money, the Plaintiff on August 3, 2017 and the same year

8.4. Each 20 million won remitted to the account opened in the D Association in the name of C in the aggregate of KRW 40 million.

B. As above, C received KRW 40 million from the Plaintiff, and issued a certificate of borrowing that the Plaintiff would repay the said KRW 40 million to the Plaintiff by January 24, 2018 (hereinafter “the instant loan certificate”). The Defendant’s name, resident registration number, and address is indicated in the joint and several surety column of the instant loan certificate, and the Defendant’s seal was affixed on the right side of the said joint and several surety column.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Of the loan certificate of the Plaintiff’s assertion, the joint and several sureties’s seal imprints the Defendant’s seal imprints on the loan certificate of this case and attached the Defendant’s certificate of personal seal imprints. In light of this, the Defendant is deemed to have prepared the loan certificate of this case with a joint and several sureties’s seal

It also argues that the burden of expression representation is borne.

B. Determination 1) Where the other party contests the authenticity of a private document, the presenter must prove it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da31549, Nov. 8, 1994). Whether to acknowledge the authenticity of a document is determined by free evaluation based on all evidence and the entire purport of pleading. The method of proving the authenticity of a private document should be proven without any special limitation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da40306, Dec. 9, 2005). However, the document submitted by the Defendant as evidence of the argument that C jointly and severally guaranteed the Plaintiff’s obligation to borrow loans amounting to KRW 40 million.