logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2016.11.08 2016가단2360
대여금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant B is dismissed.

2. Defendant C shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 60 million and its related amount.

Reasons

1. Determination as to Defendant B

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) around 2006, when the defendant C, the mother of the defendant B, stays in the plaintiff's husband D and the defendant B while staying in the plaintiff's business, it is necessary to provide the plaintiff with the power of delegation, certificate of personal seal impression, resident registration certificate, the defendant C's resident registration certificate, and copy of resident registration certificate, the plaintiff Eul lent 60 million won in cash to the defendant B while preparing a loan certificate with the defendant C, the agent of the defendant B. Even if the defendant B did not grant the right of representation to the defendant C, the defendant B is liable to act of expression under Article 125 of the Civil Act in light of the fact that the defendant C had the power of representation and the certificate of personal seal impression, etc., and thereafter, the plaintiff's non-authorized representative act was implicitly ratified in light of the fact that the plaintiff's written decision of provisional seizure, demand for distribution, and transfer notice, etc. were delivered to the defendant B. Therefore, the defendant B did not have any obligation to pay the loan and delay damages to the plaintiff's.

Therefore, the plaintiff cannot respond to the request.

B. The plaintiff on August 11, 2006 received the power of attorney, certificate of personal seal impression, copy of resident registration, resident registration certificate of defendant C, copy of resident registration certificate, and copy of resident registration certificate from defendant C on August 11, 2006, and the plaintiff lent KRW 60 million to defendant C and the plaintiff without confirming whether the right of attorney has been granted. The defendant Eul repaid KRW 30 million to the plaintiff by September 30, 2006, and the plaintiff paid KRW 15 million on September 30, 2006.

arrow