logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.08.22 2016나43475
채무부존재확인
Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Plaintiff’s future savings bank on December 1, 2002

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On December 10, 2002, the debtor column of the Credit Transaction Agreement (No. 1 certificate; hereinafter “the Credit Transaction Agreement of this case”) dated December 10, 2002 of a company future mutual savings bank (hereinafter “US Mutual Savings Bank”) that was created under the Plaintiff’s name, the stamp image is affixed along with the statement “A and Jeju D 104,” and the official in charge is affixed the seal imprint column subsequent thereto.

The letter of consent for the use of credit information and the letter of consent for the provision and use of personal credit information attached to the above letter of credit transaction are also written and sealed.

나. 미래상호저축은행이 보관하고 있는 원고의 주민등록증 사본(을 제1호증)에는 원고의 주민등록증 앞뒷면과 ‘위 본인은 2002년 12월 10일 여신거래약정의 관련 채무자 A, 차용금액 삼천만 원에 대한 채무자임을 확약하며 신분증 사본을 제출한다.’고 기재되어 있고, 위 채무자란, 차용금액란 및 확약인란 등이 자필(위 이탤릭체부분)로 기재되어 있으며 인영이 날인되어 있다.

C. The future mutual savings bank was declared bankrupt on April 30, 2013 and the Defendant was appointed as the bankruptcy trustee.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion did not have concluded a credit transaction agreement with the future mutual savings bank on December 10, 2002.

At the time, C, an employee of the future mutual savings bank as a branch of the plaintiff, has made an agreement using the plaintiff's seal imprint at will and used the loan.

Even if a credit transaction agreement was concluded between the Plaintiff and the future mutual savings bank,

The statute of limitations expired on December 10, 2012, when five years have elapsed from December 10, 2007, the due date for the debt under the above agreement.

Therefore, there is no plaintiff's obligation based on the credit transaction agreement of this case.

arrow