(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.11.21 2018가단521563

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) 수원지방법원 2018.11.21 2018가단521563

채무부존재확인

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. According to the facts acknowledged, Gap evidence Nos. 6, 8, and 13, and the purport of the whole facts and arguments in this court, Eul, on July 16, 2018, received a summary order of KRW 5 million as to the facts constituting the crime of forging private documents, forging private documents, and uttering of an investigation document (the "victim C" in the facts charged is the plaintiff of this case), and the Jeonju District Court's Branch Branch Branch Branch of 2018,603, and the above summary order became final and conclusive on August 24, 2018.

CD E F GH I F C J C C

2. Judgment on the issue

A. According to the facts found earlier on July 15, 2016, as to whether a monetary loan agreement for consumption was null and void pursuant to the Oral 15, 2016 Agreement, the agreement between the Defendant and the creditor on July 15, 2016, which was written by the Plaintiff, was forged and submitted to the Defendant irrespective of the Plaintiff’s intent, and thus, the said agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant under the said agreement is null and void.

As above, the Plaintiff asserted that the monetary loan contract under the instant agreement is null and void from the beginning of the year, and the Plaintiff did not at all assert that all or part of the obligations under the instant agreement is null and void even after it was ex post facto.

B. The defendant's assertion 1) The summary of this case's agreement is as follows: even if the agreement of this case was forged by B, etc., the defendant asserts that since the plaintiff became aware of the existence of a loan obligation under the agreement of this case and paid the overdue monthly payment under the agreement of this case, it shall be deemed that the agreement of this case was ratified pursuant to the agreement of this case. (2) The ratification of the relevant legal principles is not only an explicit method but also implied method by which the principal knew that the act was committed and would have the effect of the act to vest in himself.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.03.23 2015가단125973

-부산지방법원 2019.06.25 2018가단310718

-수원지방법원 안양지원 2018.08.09 2017가단124622

-창원지방법원 진주지원 2017.04.21 2016가단3597

-전주지방법원 2015.07.02 2014가단33040