(영문) 의정부지방법원 2015.04.17 2014나12820

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) 의정부지방법원 2015.04.17 2014나12820

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

1. The plaintiff alleged on May 8, 2006 lent 60,000,000 interest rate of 25% for delayed interest rate of 30,000,000 won out of the above interest rate, until November 30, 2006 for 30,000,000 won, and until May 30, 2007 for the remainder of 30,000,000 won, respectively, to B, and the defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the debt of the above loan to the plaintiff on the same day (hereinafter "debt of this case").

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff KRW 60,000,000 and delay damages.

2. First of all, we examine whether the Defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the loan of this case.

Accordingly, the evidence No. 2 (U.S.) corresponds to the above, since there is no evidence to acknowledge the authenticity of the document, it shall not be admitted as evidence (the entry of the evidence No. 1 appears to have been made at will without being authorized by the defendant) and the statement of the evidence No. 4 is insufficient to recognize it only by the statement of the evidence No. 1, and since there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, the defendant cannot be deemed to have jointly and severally guaranteed the loan obligation of this case.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion based on the premise that the defendant guaranteed the debt of the loan of this case is without merit.

As to this, the plaintiff asserts to the purport that the defendant should be recognized as a joint and several surety for the debt of the loan in this case, since the plaintiff did not clearly dispute the facts of the plaintiff's assertion even though the defendant appeared several times at the date of pleading in the first instance.

On the other hand, even if a confession is established, the parties can reverse the other party's argument by disputing the other party's argument at any time until the closing date of the trial court (see Supreme Court Decision 87Da368, Dec. 8, 1987), and it is obvious that the defendant argued the plaintiff's argument at the date of pleading of the trial court, and therefore, it is obvious that the defendant argued the plaintiff's argument at

참조판례

-대법원 1987. 12. 8. 선고 87다368 판결

유사 판례

-창원지방법원 2018.06.21 2017나5093

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.08.12 2019나67229

-대전지방법원천안지원 2015.04.21 2015가단2689

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.08.21 2019나81270

-수원지방법원 2019.05.30 2018가단26730