beta
(영문) 대전지방법원 2018.04.25 2017나106150

대여금 등

Text

1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked;

2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant is dismissed.

3...

Reasons

Based on the facts, the Plaintiff (the time of loan was B Saemaul Fund, which was changed as of February 29, 2008) approved the loan limit of KRW 30,000,000 from October 15, 2003 to the Defendant’s account opened on June 22, 2001, and 30,000,000 from the said account was deposited on the same day.

Around October 15, 2003, F, who is the defendant, was in office as the director of the plaintiff's branch, and thereafter was in office as the director of the plaintiff's branch, etc., and died on May 27, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] The Plaintiff’s assertion on the absence of dispute, Gap’s evidence Nos. 4, 10, 15, Eul’s evidence Nos. 1, Eul’s ground of claim as to the whole of pleadings, and the ground of claim as to the purport of claim as a whole, was agreed upon on Oct. 15, 2003 by entering into a loan transaction agreement with the Defendant on Oct. 15, 2003, the loan limit of KRW 30,00,000, the loan period from October 15, 2003 to October 15, 2005, the interest rate of KRW 11 per annum, and the damages rate of KRW 18

(hereinafter “instant loan agreement”). The term of the instant loan agreement has been extended several times, and the Defendant did not pay interest on the said loan and lost the benefit of time on January 1, 2015.

As of October 21, 2015, the principal of the instant loan is KRW 30,00,000, and since the Defendant’s unpaid interest and delay damages are KRW 5,034,023 in total, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 35,034,023 in total, including the principal and interest of the said loan, and delay damages from October 22, 2015.

The Defendant did not conclude the instant loan agreement with the Plaintiff.

The defendant's seal affixed to Gap's No. 1 (a loan transaction agreement) is the defendant's arbitrary seal without the defendant's consent.

Judgment

The fact that the defendant's seal imprint is affixed to the certificate No. 1 (a loan transaction agreement) is not a dispute between the parties.

If the seal imprinted by the seal imprint affixed on a private document is affixed to the seal of the holder, that is, the authenticity of the seal shall be established, and that is, the act of affixing the seal shall be the intention of the holder.