(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2018.06.22 2018나64

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) 서울서부지방법원 2018.06.22 2018나64

대여금

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

3. The judgment of the court of first instance is subject to Paragraph (1).

Reasons

1. In full view of the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 5 as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff lent KRW 10,000,000 to the defendant on August 5, 2008 at the maturity of 2011. At the time, the defendant prepared a loan certificate (Evidence No. 1) for the above loan to the plaintiff. On September 20, 2009, the defendant borrowed KRW 10,000,000 from the plaintiff on May 20, 1986, which added the principal and interest to the plaintiff, and sold the defendant's land D's land owned by the defendant's wife, Busan, Busan, where the defendant is residing.

“The content of “A” was written by the Defendant, and C sold the said house to SPD Co., Ltd. on June 17, 2016 and completed the registration of ownership transfer on August 25, 2016. Meanwhile, on April 15, 2018, the Plaintiff was paid KRW 4,000,000 out of the principal of the said loan from the Defendant.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 16,00,000 won (i.e., total amount of 20,000,000 won - repayment amount of 4,000,000 won) and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from August 24, 2017 to the date of full payment, as sought by the Plaintiff, following the due date for payment.

2. The defendant's defense is proved to be forged or written by duress, since the plaintiff arbitrarily affixed the seal of the defendant on the loan certificate (No. 1) and the letter (No. 3) and the seal of the defendant, and the defendant's hand are forced to be taken off and obstructed. Therefore, the above loan certificate and the separate letter are forged or written by duress.

However, even if based on all evidence submitted by the Defendant, the above loan and the letter were forged by the Plaintiff.

It is not sufficient to recognize that the document was prepared by the plaintiff's coercion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the defendant's defense is without merit.

참조조문

-소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2019.07.25 2018나83543

-제주지방법원 2015.08.18 2015가단570

-서울남부지방법원 2015.01.15 2014나54606

-서울북부지방법원 2017.04.12 2016나5670

-서울북부지방법원 2015.01.20 2014나2974