logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2015.10.28 2013가단219985
손해배상(기)
Text

1. Defendant B shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 15,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from October 4, 2015 to the date of full payment.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff owned C forest land of 10909 square meters (hereinafter “instant real estate”) in the Gyeonggi-si, Osan-si.

Defendant B is the Plaintiff’s birth, and Nonparty D is the Plaintiff’s mother.

The plaintiff was living together with D from the time of the plaintiff's death.

The Plaintiff was in custody of the Plaintiff’s seal imprint, identification card, etc. in his house as D.

B. Defendant B and D conspired with the Plaintiff’s personal seal impression, identification card, and upon Defendant B’s request as if the Plaintiff were the Plaintiff, received the confirmation document by a certified judicial scrivener E in lieu of the Plaintiff’s resident registration certificate, etc., and D obtained the Plaintiff’s resident registration certificate, etc. and on behalf of the Plaintiff, issued the Plaintiff’s resident registration certificate, etc. and personal identification card, and on June 8, 2009, Defendant B borrowed KRW 350,000,000 from the Defendant Union as if the Plaintiff was the Plaintiff’s principal, and provided the Defendant Union with the instant real estate as security, and provided all the documents, such as the establishment contract necessary for the registration of the establishment of a neighboring real estate as security.

Defendant Union prepared the documents, etc. of loans directly by the Plaintiff on the above facts.

Although the plaintiff argued that he was or ratified the power of representation in the actions of Defendant B, etc., it was confirmed that there was no part of the plaintiff as a result of written appraisal, etc. in the relevant case (U.S. District Court Decision 2014Gahap203034) and that there was no part of the plaintiff, this assertion was withdrawn, and that Defendant B and D did not dispute the receipt of the plaintiff's future loan.

C. As the above loans were not timely repaid, the Defendant Union applied for a voluntary auction on the instant real estate at the time of the establishment registration of the neighboring mortgage, and through the auction procedure.

arrow