beta
(영문) 대구지방법원의성지원 2017.08.23 2016가단969

대여금

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 80,000,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual interest from February 29, 2016 to May 25, 2016, and the following.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 1, 2014, C, the Defendant’s spouse, borrowed KRW 80,000,000 to the Plaintiff at an interest rate of 10% and by February 2, 2016.

B. At the time of the above loan, C prepared a loan certificate to the Plaintiff, and the “user” was the name of the Defendant and C, and the seal of the Defendant and C affixed thereto, respectively, to the next page indicated in the resident registration number.

C. C was withdrawn on April 2016 and became an missing person.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. If, barring any special circumstance, the authenticity of a holder of a title deed signed and sealed on a private document is presumed to be established, barring any special circumstance, if the authenticity of the seal imprint is presumed to be established, the authenticity of the entire document is presumed to be established pursuant to Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Act, and if the person disputing the authenticity of the seal imprint proves that the act of affixing the seal would result in the intent of the holder of the title deed, the presumption of the authenticity of the document shall be reversed.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da59122 delivered on February 11, 2003, etc.). In light of the above legal principle, there is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that the Defendant’s seal affixed on the “vehicle” column of the above loan certificate was affixed with the Defendant’s seal, and thus, the seal is presumed to have been affixed by the Defendant’s intent, barring any special circumstance, and accordingly the authenticity of the entire loan certificate is presumed to have been established.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 80,000 and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 10% per annum from February 29, 2016 to May 25, 2016, which is the delivery date of the original copy of the instant payment order, as sought by the Plaintiff, from February 29, 2016 to May 25, 2016, and from the next day to the date of full payment.

(b) against this;