logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2014.10.21 2014가단9675
채무부존재확인
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On March 26, 2013, the Defendant received an application for a loan under the Plaintiff’s name, the Defendant loaned KRW 15,000,000 (hereinafter “instant loan”) to a national bank account under the Plaintiff’s name (hereinafter “instant loan”) after undergoing the identification process through a copy of the driver’s license, an abstract of resident registration, and a mobile phone call.

B. On January 29, 2014, the Defendant issued to the Plaintiff a debt certificate verifying that the Plaintiff remains the debt amount of KRW 16,300,209 in total, as follows:

Plaintiff 1, on March 26, 2013, 281, 931 2,018, 278, 16,300,209 [unit] / [unit] of non-contentious facts, evidence Nos. 1, 1, 1 through 5 (including serial number), and the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the loan of this case was made by stealing using the Plaintiff’s name. Thus, the Plaintiff does not bear the obligation of the loan of this case.

B. Defendant’s assertion 1) In light of the following: (a) at the time of the instant loan, the Plaintiff’s driver’s license, the certified copy of resident registration, etc. was submitted; (b) the Plaintiff was subject to the Plaintiff’s mobile phone verification procedure; (c) the Plaintiff was the Plaintiff’s account opened and used for the instant loan; and (d) the Plaintiff remitted the instant loan deposited in the instant national bank account to C; and (b) even if C used the instant loan by stealing by stealing by stealing the Plaintiff’s name, the instant loan was granted by the Plaintiff’s intent. However, in light of the foregoing circumstances, the Defendant believed that C had the right to engage in the instant loan on behalf of the Plaintiff, and there is justifiable reason to believe that it was the right to engage in the instant loan.

3. Determination

A. We examine the validity of the instant loan, and Nos. 2 through 2.

arrow