(영문) 대전지방법원 2019.01.09 2018가단205220

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) 대전지방법원 2019.01.09 2018가단205220

대여금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. On January 20, 2008, the Plaintiff sold to the Defendant the land 365.9 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) owned by the Plaintiff for KRW 240 million.

B. On March 13, 2008, the Defendant prepared and delivered to the Plaintiff a loan certificate stating that “The rent shall be KRW 100 million and the price of the instant land shall not be repaid, and shall be repaid until December 30, 2008,” which read that “the Plaintiff shall pay the rent shall be KRW 100 million and the price of the instant land shall be repaid by December 30, 2008” (Evidence 1).

C. On the same day, the Plaintiff had completed the registration of ownership transfer of the said land in the future of the Defendant on the same day, even though he did not receive any balance of KRW 100 million with the Defendant’s horse.

However, the defendant does not pay the above amount for ten years after the lapse of ten years.

The defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff KRW 100 million and damages for delay.

2. Determination

A. In addition to the statement No. 3 and witness D’s testimony, considering the overall purport of the pleading, D’s selling of the above land under the Plaintiff’s name to E, which was the husband of the Defendant at the time of January 20, 208, D’s selling of the above land to E, who was the husband of the Plaintiff, as of January 20, 208, and D’s completing the registration of transfer of ownership on the instant land in the future of the Defendant, who was the wife of E, on March 13, 2008, without receiving any balance of KRW 100 million from E, and E’s death on

B. The Plaintiff submitted the evidence of his argument that 100 million won claim was presented to the Defendant, but the Defendant did not have prepared the above loan certificate, and even according to the witness D’s testimony, the above loan certificate was written by E in the form of E along with E, and the seal affixed to the Defendant’s name is not clearly memory as to whether the Defendant was directly aware of the fact that E was the Defendant.

Therefore, the above loan certificate is a document to prove the authenticity.

유사 판례

-춘천지방법원강릉지원 2015.11.11 2015가단22638

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.03.31 2015가단5349026

-서울동부지방법원 2019.01.15 2018가단3930

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.10.25 2017가합507729

-춘천지방법원 강릉지원 2015.11.27 2015고단1202