logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2019.10.18 2019나51503
대여금
Text

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

Reasons

1. In the first instance court, the Plaintiffs filed a claim for the interest on the loans of Plaintiff A and the Defendant’s insurance premium, etc. in the first instance court, ② Plaintiff A’s loan as of May 6, 2015, Plaintiff B’s loan claim as of August 11, 2015, ③ Plaintiff A’s loan claim as of August 7, 2015, and the first instance court dismissed both the said claim.

Since the plaintiffs appealed only against the judgment on each claim, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the above two and three claims.

2. The court's explanation concerning this case is the same as the statement of the first instance court's decision in addition to the following, and thus, it is acceptable to accept this case as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. The fifth and nine parts of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows: “The above documents were not presented in the pleading of this case.”

The actual paper presented the original copy of the loan certificate(A No. 4) at the first date for pleading in the appellate court.

Although the respective letters and documentary borrowings in the Defendant’s name (Evidence A No. 3, 4, and 9) are written on May 6, 2015 and August 11, 2015, each of the above written statements and documentary borrowings were submitted around June 2017 in accordance with the correction order in the above application for provisional attachment, and it is difficult to conclude that they were actually prepared on each of the above written statements and documentary borrowings. Thus, even if there was a fact that Plaintiff A sent a letter that requested the Defendant to affix a seal imprint on the necessary documents around September 2015 (Evidence A No. 13-5), it is difficult to accept the Plaintiffs’ assertion that the Plaintiffs did not hold the Defendant’s seal imprint.

Part VI through VII of the judgment of the court of first instance is deleted, and Part VIII of the same part is â……………………………………………………….â…………………

The term “U” in Part 17 of the judgment of the first instance court shall be read as “A”.

4. Additional parts of the judgment of the first instance.

arrow