(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2019.12.20 2019나53370

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) 서울남부지방법원 2019.12.20 2019나53370

대여금

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. The defendant's ground for appeal citing the judgment of the court of first instance is not different from the argument of the court of first instance, and the fact-finding and decision of the court of first instance are justified even if the evidence submitted to the court of first instance was presented to this court.

Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows, except for further determination as to the defendant's assertion as the grounds for appeal as the grounds for appeal, and therefore, it is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance under Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. At the time of the Defendant’s assertion, the Plaintiff knew that at the time of the instant loan agreement, the Defendant provided only the name of the loan, and that the loan obligation was paid by E and F (hereinafter “E, etc.”) and the vehicle was used by E, etc., and thereafter, requested vehicle delivery to E who is not the Defendant. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff, a third party, was aware of the fact that E, etc., as at the time

As such, the loan agreement of this case must be cancelled as a defective declaration of intent by fraud.

B. Where a third party’s declaration of intention to the other party to the judgment made a fraud or coercion, the declaration of intention may be cancelled only when the other party knew or could have known such fact (Article 110(2) of the Civil Act). The health account is whether the Plaintiff knew or could have known of deception against the Defendant, E, etc. at the time of the instant loan agreement, and the fact that the Plaintiff knew that E, etc. borrowed vehicle purchase price from the Defendant and decided to repay the loan obligation to the Defendant on behalf of the Defendant, no dispute exists between the parties, but the other party should prove that the other party knew or could have known that the other party had committed fraud against the other party in order to cancel it by means of deception pursuant to Article 110(2) of the Civil Act. The evidence submitted by the Defendant alone

참조조문

-민법 제110조 제2항

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-춘천지방법원강릉지원 2017.05.02 2016나1295

-서울고등법원(춘천) 2015.07.22 2015나64

-서울동부지방법원 2016.11.22 2016가단5291

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.11.27 2020가단5138831

-인천지방법원 부천지원 2018.08.22 2018가단3542