(영문) 춘천지방법원강릉지원 2015.02.12 2014가단203492

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) 춘천지방법원강릉지원 2015.02.12 2014가단203492

대여금

Text

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 26,098,088 and KRW 25,741,505 from October 1, 2014 to the day of full payment.

Reasons

1. In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings, the following facts can be acknowledged in the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3.

On June 16, 2014, the Defendant drafted an application for a loan with the content that the Plaintiff will borrow KRW 26,100,000 with the new car purchase fund at a rate of 60 months, interest rate of 7.9% per annum, and interest rate of 24% per annum (hereinafter “instant application for loan”).

B. The Plaintiff loaned KRW 26,100,00 according to the application for the above loan, and due to delay in the repayment of the above principal and interest of loan, the remainder of the above principal and interest of loan is KRW 25,741,50 as of September 30, 2014, plus KRW 26,098,08,08, including unpaid interest rate of KRW 25,741,50 as of September 30, 201, and late interest rate of KRW 343,045 as of the

2. Determination

A. As to the Plaintiff’s assertion as the cause of the instant claim, the Defendant asserted for the payment of the principal and interest of the loan to the Defendant, the Defendant alleged that the instant loan application was forged by Nonparty B, and thus, the Defendant did not assume any responsibility therefor.

B. (1) In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as to whether the loan application of this case was forged or not, it is reasonable to deem that the non-party B had a legitimate authority to prepare the loan application of this case on behalf of the defendant, even if the non-party B prepared the loan application of this case as alleged by the defendant, on June 16, 2014, by posting a phone to the defendant, and providing the final guidance on the contents of the installment on the loan application of this case. Accordingly, it is reasonable to deem that the above loan application of this case was directly prepared by the defendant, and that the non-party B had a legitimate authority to prepare the loan application of this case on behalf of the defendant.

(2) As to this, the Defendant responded to Nonparty B at the time of receiving the phone from the employee of the Plaintiff, and thus, the Defendant.

유사 판례

-광주지방법원 2020.11.12 2019가단518570

-부산지방법원 2015.07.02 2014나45840

-서울북부지방법원 2014.11.28 2014나21234

-서울동부지방법원 2013.09.13 2013가단100676

-대구지방법원 2016.06.30 2015나308020