(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2014.08.28 2013가단64411

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) 서울동부지방법원 2014.08.28 2013가단64411

대여금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff asserted that on September 24, 2013, the Plaintiff lent KRW 50 million to the Defendant with interest rate of KRW 2% per month and one month after the due date for payment. The Defendant received the instant loan from the Plaintiff and again lent the instant loan to the Plaintiff, but this was not for the repayment of the loan, but for the Defendant’s donation to the Plaintiff, and thus, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff is liable to pay the instant loan and the damages for delay.

On the other hand, the defendant asserts that the amount of KRW 50 million received from the plaintiff in selling real estate shall be sold to the defendant's passbook, and the withdrawal of the money shall be demanded by the defendant, and on September 24, 2013, the defendant paid 50 million won transferred from the plaintiff to the plaintiff on the day and again paid 50 million won to the plaintiff.

2. Determination

A. If the stamp image of the holder of a title deed signed and sealed on a private document is affixed with his/her seal, barring special circumstances, it shall be presumed that the authenticity of the stamp image is established, i.e., the act of affixing the seal is based on the will of the holder of the title deed, barring special circumstances. Once the authenticity of the stamp image is presumed, the authenticity of the entire document is presumed in accordance with Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Act, but if it is proved that the act of affixing the seal was done by a person other than the title deed, such presumption is broken. In such a case, the person who submitted the document bears the burden

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 93Da4151 Decided August 24, 1993, and Supreme Court Decision 2009Da38049 Decided April 29, 2010, etc.) B.

On the other hand, there is no dispute between the parties that the stamp image on the defendant's name, as shown in Gap evidence No. 1 (the tea card) as shown in the plaintiff's assertion, has been reproduced by the defendant's seal imprint, but the plaintiff has the loan certificate of this case.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제358조

참조판례

-대법원 1993. 8. 24. 선고 93다4151 전원합의체 판결

유사 판례

-전주지방법원 2018.10.02 2018가단215

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.10.24 2018나17630

-울산지방법원 2015.12.17 2014가합8147

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.12.24 2018나77540

-의정부지방법원 2016.07.08 2016가단2758