(영문) 대구지방법원 2015.04.29 2013나302554

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) 대구지방법원 2015.04.29 2013나302554

대여금

Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. All of the claims filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendant (Appointed Party) and the designated parties.

Reasons

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. On June 14, 2012, the Plaintiff borrowed money to E several occasions, and on June 14, 2012, issued a certificate of borrowing that “the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 47,400,000 from the Plaintiff on a regular basis, and the Plaintiff would repay KRW 5,00,000 per month from July 30, 2012 (hereinafter “instant certificate of borrowing”).

B. Defendant C and E’s wifeed children, Defendant D, based on the loan certificate of this case, jointly and severally guaranteed the Plaintiff’s debt (hereinafter “debted debt of this case”).

C. Therefore, the Defendant and the designated parties are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff the sum of the borrowed money and the delay damages for the said amount, as joint and several surety, to the Plaintiff.

2. The loan of this case is admissible as evidence that the defendant and the designated parties jointly and severally guaranteed the debt of the loan of this case.

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the stamp image affixed on the name of the defendant and the selected person D is the seal of the defendant and the selected person D, and that the stamp stamp affixed on the name of the selected person C is the unmanned of the designated person C. Thus, the part of the loan certificate of this case concerning the defendant and the designated person cannot be used as evidence because there is no evidence to acknowledge the authenticity, and it is not sufficient to recognize that the defendant and the designated person jointly and severally guaranteed the loan obligation of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance, which has different conclusions, is unfair, and all claims against the defendant and the designated parties are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

유사 판례

-춘천지방법원원주지원 2016.11.10 2016가단2993

-서울남부지방법원 2016.03.18 2015가합6136

-대전지방법원 2019.01.17 2016가단31012

-대구지방법원 2018.10.31 2018나5674

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.09.17 2015가단5019899