beta
(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.09.01 2016나3901

양수금

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

1. The plaintiff sought payment against the defendant from the company bank, Seoul Guarantee Insurance, KB-backed 1st, and KB-backed 16th. The court of first instance rendered a judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claims based on the claims that the plaintiff acquired from Seoul Guarantee Insurance, and to dismiss the claims based on the claims that the plaintiff acquired from the company bank, KB-backed 1st, and KB-backed 16th.

Since this Court appealed only to the plaintiff, the subject of this Court's judgment is limited to the claims asserted by the plaintiff to have taken over from the corporate bank, the case securitization1, and the case securitization16.

2. The Plaintiff asserted and determined that the Defendant received loans from the Company Bank, the Company Bank, and the Company-backed 16th, and the Company-backed 16th, and sought payment of the above loans from the Defendant.

The defendant asserts that the plaintiff cannot respond to the plaintiff's request because he did not receive a loan from the corporate bank and the national card.

In accordance with the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant received a loan from a corporate bank and a national card, No. 1-1-3 (Application for Non-Cock Card Issuance) and No. 1-3 (Application for National Card Issuance) of the above application, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant's name and signature in the applicant's column were written by the defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the authenticity of each of the above applications.

In addition, each statement of Gap evidence Nos. 4 (Account of Principal and Interest), Gap evidence No. 5-1, and Gap evidence No. 5-2 (Account of Debt Adjustment) is insufficient to recognize the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant approved each of the above loans, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is without merit for further review.

3. If so, the judgment of the first instance is just in conclusion, and thus, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so ordered as per Disposition.