채무부존재확인
1. The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. On October 1, 2013, the Plaintiff’s name entered into an agreement on a loan application with Defendant New Card Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant New Card”) with a loan of KRW 40 million, KRW 48 months during the loan period, interest rate of KRW 1.57% per annum, and KRW 25% per annum (second class installment). On November 28, 2013, Defendant Han Capital Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Han Capital”) and a loan of KRW 20 million, KRW 36 months during the loan period, interest rate of KRW 14.9% per annum, and damages rate of KRW 25% per annum.
(hereinafter “each installment loan contract of this case”). B.
Plaintiff
In the name of B, the ownership transfer registration was completed with respect to the vehicle and Cenz vehicles.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry and shape of Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the purport of the whole pleading
2. The Plaintiff’s assertion did not confer the authority to conclude an installment loan contract with the Defendants in the name of the Plaintiff, and even though it did not conclude an installment loan contract with the Defendants or deliver seals necessary for the preparation of the contract to D, etc., as D, etc. entered into the said installment loan contract with the Defendants in the name of the Defendants, the said installment loan contract is null and void.
Therefore, there is no obligation of each installment loan to the Defendants.
3. In full view of each of the above facts of recognition and evidence Nos. 3, 4 (the same as evidence Nos. 3, 4, 1, and 2 of Eul, each of the loan contracts and personal information inquiries, collection, use, and consent to provide, and the whole purport of the argument as a result of appraiser G’s seal appraisal, each of the seals affixed to the Plaintiff’s name is recognized as being affixed with the Plaintiff’s seal, and the authenticity of the entire document is presumed to be established. The Plaintiff’s assertion that each of the above documents was forged by D, etc., but it is not sufficient to acknowledge it only with the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it). Eul’s argument is written in the evidence Nos. 1 through 12, 1, and 6.