(영문) 광주지방법원 2019.07.03 2018나7104 | 리걸엔진

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) 광주지방법원 2019.07.03 2018나7104

대여금

Text

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. As long as the authenticity of a disposal document is recognized, the court must recognize the existence and content of the declaration of intention as stated in the contents, unless there is any clear and acceptable counter-proof that the contents can be denied.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Da67602, 67619 Decided July 9, 2009, etc.). B.

According to the purport of Gap evidence No. 1 and the whole arguments, C, on June 25, 2009, made and issued a letter of payment to the plaintiff with the purport of borrowing KRW 5,000,000 from the plaintiff on June 25, 2009, stating that "A shall pay KRW 5,00,000 to the plaintiff until September 25, 2009," and it is acknowledged that the defendant's name and signature had been affixed on the bottom of the above letter of payment, which is "joint guarantor" by the defendant. Thus, the authenticity of the above letter of payment, which is a disposal document, is recognized.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, C, on June 25, 2009, shall be deemed to have jointly and severally guaranteed the debt of the instant loan when borrowing KRW 5,00,000 from the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the instant loan”). Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the loan amount of KRW 5,00,000,000 and damages for delay.

C. The defendant himself, as a member of the literature, stated his name in the above payment note and signed it in the sense that "the plaintiff would have given a loan to C by introducing money without the intention of joint and several sureties," and the "joint and several surety" stated in the above payment note and signed it, and the defendant did not have the original name in the above payment note and later stated the name in the above payment note and was forged or altered as it later stated in the defendant's intention. However, there is no evidence to support the defendant's assertion, and the defendant's above assertion is without merit

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. Although the defendant alleged that the debt of this case was fully repaid, there is evidence to acknowledge this.

참조판례

-대법원 2009. 7. 9. 선고 2006다67602,67619 판결

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.06.14 2017나76069

-대구지방법원 2017.06.29 2016나313050

-광주지방법원 2014.05.23 2013가합10651

-대구지방법원 2017.08.31 2017나300259

-부산지방법원 2018.08.22 2017나61447