beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
purport, purport, and.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On October 1, 2013, on the Plaintiff’s name, Defendant New Card Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant New Card”) and an application for a loan of KRW 40 million with a loan period of KRW 48 months, interest rate of KRW 1.57% per annum, and delay compensation rate of KRW 25% per annum. On November 28, 2013, Defendant Han Capital Co., Ltd (hereinafter “Defendant Han Capital”) and a loan of KRW 20 million and a loan of KRW 36 months, interest rate of KRW 14.9% per annum, and delay compensation rate of KRW 25% per annum were written.
(hereinafter “each installment loan contract of this case”). (b)
Plaintiff
In the name of B, the ownership transfer registration was completed with respect to the vehicle and Cenz vehicles.
[Grounds for recognition] Facts without dispute, entry and form of evidence A 1-4, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The Plaintiff’s assertion did not confer the authority to conclude an installment loan contract with the Defendants in the name of the Plaintiff, and even though it did not conclude an installment loan contract with the Defendants or deliver the seals necessary for the preparation of the contract to D, etc., as the Plaintiff entered into an installment loan contract with the Defendants in the name of the Defendants, each of the above contracts is null and void.
Therefore, there is no obligation of each installment loan to the Defendants.
3. The facts acknowledged prior to the judgment, and the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 3, 4 (the same as Eul evidence No. 3, 4, Eul evidence No. 1, and 2, each loan contract and personal information inquiry, collection, use, and consent letter, and the result of the appraiser G's seal appraisal by the first instance trial appraiser G, each stamp image of the plaintiff's name on the plaintiff's seal shall be presumed to be the authenticity of the entire document. The plaintiff defense that each of the above documents was forged by Eul, etc., but the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it). Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 12, Eul evidence No. 1, and Eul evidence No. 6, taking into account the whole purport of the arguments, the plaintiff and the defendants of this case.