beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.11.23 2017나56331

대여금

Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments in Gap evidence No. 1 (written evidence of cash custody), it may be acknowledged that C, on October 30, 2008, keeps the cash custody certificate with the purport that it shall be kept until March 30, 2009 (hereinafter "written custody certificate of this case"), and that the defendant transferred it to the plaintiff and signed it as a guarantor and delivered it to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff lent money to D with the defendant's introduction, but since D did not pay the money, signed by C and the defendant, the representative of D company, and completed the cash custody certificate of this case, the defendant asserts that the defendant is obligated to pay the money stated in the cash custody certificate of this case as the guarantor, and that the defendant is not obligated to pay the money under the cash custody certificate of this case since it was prepared by intimidation.

However, even according to the plaintiff's own assertion, it is not the plaintiff, but the plaintiff remitted money to D. The plaintiff prepared a cash custody certificate of this case to the defendant and received it to E and delivered it to the defendant, and the original is currently kept in custody of E. The cash custody certificate of this case is obvious in its language that the plaintiff did not provide for the recipient. If the situation is the same, it is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff possessed a copy of the cash custody certificate of this case as the right holder of the claim of this case and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it as the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case based on the premise that the plaintiff is the right holder of the claim under the cash custody certificate of this case cannot be accepted

Although the Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the instant lawsuit was also delegated, it is allowed for a person, who is not the subject of the original legal relationship, to perform the performance of a lawsuit by himself/herself, the subject of the legal relationship, only by means of a simple delegation by the original right holder, unless otherwise stipulated in statutes.