(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2017.12.13 2016나28455

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2017.12.13 2016나28455

대여금

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, except where the plaintiff added the following judgments as to newly submitted arguments and evidence at the trial of the court of first instance, and thus, it is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional matters to be determined;

A. The plaintiff submitted evidence No. 20 to Gap evidence No. 26 in order to prove that Gap evidence No. 1 was prepared by the defendant's delegation at the trial court.

The entry of No. 25, the statement of No. 25, the content of which is the statement of C, is not consistent with the entry and content of No. 8, which was submitted by the court of first instance, and it is difficult to believe in light of C and the Plaintiff’s personal relations.

As to the statement of the Defendant’s certificate of personal seal impression (Evidence A No. 20), it is reasonable to view that there was an agreement on a loan for consumption on May 10, 2012, which was entered in the loan certificate (Evidence A No. 13), and that the Plaintiff sent a certificate of personal seal impression to the Plaintiff on May 11, 2012 after the date on which the above certificate of personal seal impression was issued, and that the Plaintiff sent a certificate of personal seal impression to lend the name related to the leasing business of the instant building, which was intended to be established by the Plaintiff or G, to the end of May 10, 2012, based on the following circumstances: (a) the Plaintiff: (b) the date on which the certificate of personal seal impression was issued, which was shown in the loan certificate (Evidence A No. 13); (c) the Plaintiff’s certificate of personal seal impression was insufficient to recognize that there was a lack of evidence to acknowledge otherwise in light of the fact that the Plaintiff had been delegated on May 14, 2012.

B. The Plaintiff, on behalf of the Defendant, entered into the instant loan agreement with H.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원 2018.12.06 2018나202065

-대구지방법원 2017.08.24 2017나1057

-서울동부지방법원 2019.04.17 2018가합105178

-서울고등법원 2014.12.03 2013나2029682

-서울고등법원 2015.07.30 2014나2050287