(영문) 인천지방법원 2018.08.29 2018나51518

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) 인천지방법원 2018.08.29 2018나51518

양수금

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. On January 31, 2007, C withdrawn KRW 19,000,000, which was remitted from the account under the name of D to the account under the name of E, and thereafter lent KRW 20,000,000 to the Defendant in cash, and ② remitted KRW 10,000,000 from the account under the name of D to the account under the name of F (the representative of the Defendant; hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) by remitting KRW 10,00,000 to the account under the name of F (hereinafter “instant loan”).

B. On January 10, 2017, the Plaintiff acquired the instant loan claim from C, and thereafter the notification of the assignment of the claim was made lawfully.

C. Therefore, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the instant loan amounting to KRW 30,000,000 and interest and delay damages thereon.

2. Determination

A. Considering the following circumstances, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge that C lent KRW 30,00,00 to the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

1) If “the stamp image of the person in whose name the document was affixed,” which was affixed on a private document, is withdrawn by his seal, the authenticity of the stamp image shall be presumed to have been created, that is, the act of sealing is based on the will of the person in whose name the document was written. Once the authenticity of the stamp image is presumed, the authenticity of the document shall be presumed in accordance with Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Act. However, in this case, the loan certificate submitted by the Plaintiff to prove the fact of leasing (hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case

) While the holder of the title deed is an individual of the defendant, the stamp image affixed on the loan certificate of this case is reproduced by the seals of the non-party company, so it is difficult to see that the authenticity of the loan certificate of this case is established (at that time, even if the defendant was the representative of the non-party company, the legal personality of the defendant and the non

참조조문

-민사소송법 제358조

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2017.05.26 2016가단25252

-서울중앙지방법원 2014.05.15 2013가단5157698

-부산고등법원 2016.04.21 2014나6930

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.02.07 2016가단5180415

-춘천지방법원 2018.02.14 2017나52044