logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2019.09.26 2019나64105
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 judgment of the court of first instance.

Reasons

1. The court's explanation of this case is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning the defendant, except for the addition of the following matters. Thus, the court's explanation of this case is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

On the third side of the judgment of the first instance, the following shall be added:

In light of the circumstances such as “A”’s joint and several sureties’s signature in the joint and several sureties’s certificate (“B”) and brought the above documents to the Plaintiff with the husband’s signature, and after the lapse of several days, the Defendant’s personal information and seal affixed, and thus, the authenticity of the above loan certificate as to the joint and several sureties’s signature should not be denied. However, even if the Plaintiff’s assertion is itself, it is difficult to recognize the authenticity of the above loan certificate as to the joint and several sureties’s signature, and rather, the above joint and several sureties’s signature is very poor from the debtor’s column C’s own pen, and the resident registration number indicated in the column for the joint and several sureties’s signature

[2] The plaintiff's new argument in this Court is examined as follows.

“The Plaintiff asserts that, in collusion with C, the Defendant applied for individual rehabilitation and that it should be held liable for joint tort since it constitutes a crime of fraud under the Criminal Act to deny the fact of joint and several liability and to avoid the liability of the Plaintiff. As such, there is no evidence to deem that the Defendant conspired with C or committed a deceitful act against the Plaintiff, the above assertion is without merit, without further review.”

2. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case against the defendant shall be dismissed as it is without merit.

Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part on the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance is justified and thus, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

arrow