logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2015.12.10 2015나4137
대여금
Text

The judgment of the first instance court, including the claim of the plaintiff succeeding intervenor, shall be amended as follows:

The plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The plaintiff, who is the bankruptcy trustee of Gyeongbuk Mutual Savings Bank (hereinafter "Gyeongbuk Mutual Savings Bank"), upon judgment on the plaintiff's claim, is the cause of the claim in this case. Since Gyeongbuk Mutual Savings Bank lent KRW 2 million to the defendant on June 2, 2002, the defendant asserts that the defendant is liable to pay KRW 2 million and interest or delay damages to the plaintiff who taken over Gyeongbuk Mutual Savings Bank.

However, the Plaintiff’s assertion (hereinafter “instant claim”) transferred the instant claim to Gyeongbuk Mutual Savings Bank, Inc., and the Defendant again transferred the instant claim to the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff. As such, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit, without further review.

2. Determination as to the claim of the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor

A. The Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor asserts that the claim of this case against the Defendant was transferred in sequence to the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor, and that the Defendant is liable to pay KRW 2 million and interest or delay damages.

B. Therefore, on June 2, 2002, regarding the loan of KRW 2 million to the Defendant on June 2, 2002, the Plaintiff’s successor indicated the evidence as evidence consistent with the Plaintiff’s aforementioned assertion, but the above document is not admissible as evidence since there is no evidence to acknowledge the authenticity, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the above loan. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion by the Plaintiff’s successor is without merit without further review.

[Plaintiff’s successor intervenor] The documents prepared by the Defendant at the time of obtaining loans from the Industrial Bank of Korea on September 27, 200 (the defendant’s seal affixed to the evidence Nos. 2 through 5 and the defendant’s seal affixed to the evidence No. 9 are identical, and Gap’s seal is identical.

arrow