(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.05.02 2017가합512547

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 2018.05.02 2017가합512547

대여금

Text

1. The plaintiff's primary claim and the conjunctive claim are all dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Judgment as to the main claim

A. On October 19, 2015, the Plaintiff: (a) on October 19, 2015, the Plaintiff lent KRW 500 million to the Defendant at interest rate of 8% per annum, and on October 19, 2016; and (b) on the same day (hereinafter “instant contract”). However, the Defendant did not pay the principal and interest of the loan by the due date; (b) as the Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff the principal and interest of the loan until January 13, 2017; (c) the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the interest and interest of KRW 51,506,849, the total amount of KRW 51,506,849, and delay damages amount of KRW 500,000,000,000 to the account under the Plaintiff’s name at the request of the representative director B; and (d) the Defendant immediately received KRW 500,000,00 from the Plaintiff’s bank.

In addition, the contract of this case is forged.

B. Determination 1) The Plaintiff sought the payment of principal and interest on the instant contract to the Defendant as evidence, and the Defendant asserts that the instant contract (No. 2) was forged, and the Plaintiff, the presenter, must prove the establishment of the petition.

However, in light of the circumstances that are recognized as comprehensively considering the statement No. 2 of this case and the fact-finding results of this court's fact-finding to the registry office of the Seoul Central District Court, i.e., the defendant's corporate seal was not changed since July 13, 2015, and the defendant's seal affixed to the contract of this case is clearly different from the defendant's corporate seal affixed to the contract of this case on October 19, 2015, ii) the plaintiff did not properly explain the process of preparing the contract of this case, and iii) there is no evidence that the defendant affixed his seal to the contract of this case or participated in the preparation of the contract, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge the authenticity of the contract of this case.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.07.12 2018나45130

-수원지방법원안산지원 2017.11.16 2016가합1370

-대구지방법원 2019.03.21 2018고단5519

-서울북부지방법원 2018.01.12 2016나3483