(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.10.02 2019나2208

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.10.02 2019나2208

신용카드이용대금

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

1. Basic facts

A. On May 8, 2000, Co-Defendant B Co-Defendant B (hereinafter “B”) entered into a credit card transaction agreement with the Plaintiff.

B. B was in the course of a credit card transaction with a credit card transaction, and was unable to pay the credit card price. As of June 11, 2008, the principal amount of the credit card use price was KRW 44,748,217, interest and delay damages amounted to KRW 73,637,821, and the agreed delay damages rate at the time was 28% per annum.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 12, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion is the cause of the claim in this case, and as the defendant, the representative director B at the time of entering into a credit card transaction agreement with the plaintiff, jointly and severally guaranteed the defendant's credit card user fee obligation against the plaintiff, the defendant does not have any participation in the operation in B, and as the defendant's husband D who actually operated B without any authority entered into a joint and several guarantee agreement with the defendant in the name of the defendant,

B. Determination Gap's evidence No. 4 (the application for admission and the certificate of personal seal impression, and the name of the defendant in the joint and several sureties's name are based on the defendant's seal, and thus, the authenticity of the entire document is presumed to have been established. The defendant asserted at the first date of pleading of the appellate court that the above seal No. 4 was not based on his own seal, but at the third date of pleading, he recognized the portion of the stamp image as being based on the defendant's seal imprint. The defendant alleged that the seal was stolen by the defendant's husband, but the statement of No. 5 is not easily believed, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it), comprehensively taking into account the purport of the whole argument in the whole pleading, the defendant's credit card transaction agreement with the plaintiff at the time when B, who was the representative director, was entered

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원 2016.07.15 2016나51089

-대전지방법원 2018.04.27 2017나111282

-대구지방법원안동지원 2014.11.12 2014가단1591

-울산지방법원 2017.09.21 2017가단7582

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.10.27 2016나19472