(영문) 대전지방법원 2019.01.22 2018나259 | 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) 대전지방법원 2019.01.22 2018나259

대여금

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

Facts of recognition

On December 27, 2012, the Defendant drafted a loan certificate (Nos. 1 and 5, hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case”) in which the Defendant borrowed money from the Plaintiff several times on several occasions on December 27, 2012.

The loan certificate of this case is indicated as KRW 150,00,000, interest rate of KRW 3%, and the due date of payment on September 15, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 (a serial number is included in the loan certificate of this case. Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 5 is the loan certificate of this case. The defendant's name and seal part of the defendant is presumed to be the authenticity of the whole document due to no dispute. The defendant's assertion that part of the loan certificate of this case was altered, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it as follows) and according to the above facts of recognition as to the ground of claim as to the whole argument, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff interest or delay damages calculated at the rate of 25% per annum as requested by the plaintiff from December 28, 2012, which is the day following the loan certificate of this case, to the day of full payment, unless there are special circumstances.

The Defendant’s assertion as to the Defendant’s defense of repayment is that the loan amount and the interest are altered after the Defendant prepared and thus cannot be used as evidence, and the Defendant is not liable for the repayment based on the loan certificate.

If the signature or seal of the principal, who is the title holder, is affixed to a private document to determine whether to alter the loan certificate of this case, the document is presumed to have been duly formed, and even if other parts are disputed that have been altered by means of a writing, etc., the entire document is presumed to have been duly formed, and thus, the party disputing such alteration bears the responsibility to prove the alteration (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Da4674, Nov. 10, 1995). Once the loan certificate of this case is drawn up by the Defendant, the Defendant shall be

참조판례

-대법원 1995. 11. 10. 선고 95다4674 판결

유사 판례

-춘천지방법원 2018.07.17 2017나1725

-수원지방법원 2019.04.19 2018나72697

-부산지방법원 2020.01.09 2019나101

-대전지방법원 2018.01.12 2017고정1494