logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2021.02.03 2020나2030116
대여금
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The purport and purport of the appeal

1. The purport of the claim;

Reasons

The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which cited the case, is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the appeal as follows. Thus, this is acceptable by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The part of the first instance judgment 4-6 to 17-2 of the first instance judgment is as follows.

In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, the Defendant’s signature stated in each of the above documents can be acknowledged as having been made by the Defendant in full view of the evidence Nos. 1-1 through 4 of the evidence No. 1 and the evidence No. 2 of the evidence No. 2 of the Party A (each loan and cash custody evidence No. 1-2, a letter of confirmation, and a witness D of the first instance trial.

The Defendant asserted that D only received the Defendant’s signature from the Defendant in blank document and supplemented the content thereof, but only the Defendant’s signature was first made in the absence of the above borrowing certificate, cash custody certificate, and confirmation letter on the sole testimony of the witness witness D of the first instance trial.

Rather, it is insufficient to recognize that the defendant submitted on November 7, 2018, "application for mediation (written opinion)" to the effect that "A evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (written evidence of loans and cash custody) attached to the application form for mediation was directly made by the plaintiff," and each statement of evidence Nos. 16, 18, and 19 (written evidence No. 16, 18, and 19 was insufficient to reverse the above recognition, and the defendant's assertion is not reasonable). In full view of the purport of each argument, the defendant's obligation to pay the defendant the above amount of KRW 6,00,000 to the plaintiff on January 16, 2012 (written opinion) and the above amount of KRW 30,000,000 (per annum No. 301, Jun. 30, 2012; KRW 300,000 (per annum 301,31,2013.31,2013.

[1. A.

arrow