beta
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2018.06.14 2017가단17921

차용금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. According to the overall purport of the evidence Nos. 1-1, 2, 3, and 2-1, 2-1, 3, and 2-2, it is recognized that the Plaintiff loaned the Defendants a total of KRW 45 million (hereinafter “the instant loan”) by setting the maturity period of KRW 20 million on August 28, 2007 to 31% on December 31, 2007 and interest month, ② December 6, 2007 to 3% on May 31, 2008 and interest month on December 6, 2008; ③ December 1, 2007 to 3% on May 1, 2008 and December 31, 2007 to 3% on May 31, 2008 and making each loan to the Defendants.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the plaintiff the loan of this case 45 million won and interest or delay damages.

B. Defendant B asserts that each loan certificate (No. 1, 2, and 3) submitted by the Plaintiff is a forged document by stealing his husband’s seal at the Plaintiff’s request.

If the authenticity of the seal imprinted on a private document is withdrawn by his/her seal, barring any special circumstance, it is presumed that the act of affixing the seal is based on the will of the person in whose name the document is prepared, barring any special circumstance. Once the authenticity of the seal imprint is presumed, the authenticity of the entire document is presumed pursuant to Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Act, but the presumption that the act of affixing the seal is based on the will of the person in whose name the document is prepared is actually presumed, and thus, the presumption of the authenticity is broken if the person disputing the authenticity of the seal imprinted proves circumstances that the act of affixing the seal imprinted is based on the will of the person in whose name the document is prepared.

The authenticity of each of the above loans is presumed to be established, since Defendant B recognizes that the above loans are affixed to each of the above loans (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da59122, Feb. 11, 2003) and Defendant B is based on his/her seal.