logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2015.06.10 2015가단365
증서진부확인
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. According to the reasoning of evidence No. 1 of the facts based on Gap, the defendant and Eul, who are the married couple on June 25, 2013, prepared a loan certificate (hereinafter "the loan certificate of this case"), stating that C (Geung-si D) borrowed KRW 40 million on July 31, 2012, KRW 70 million on October 31, 2012, KRW 10 million on June 25, 2013, and KRW 120 million on the loan of this case, KRW 120 million on the interest of the bank, and immediately redeem interest and principal at the time of sale of real estate owned by the principal (C) (hereinafter "the loan certificate of this case"), and C (hereinafter "the deceased") died on June 17, 2014, KRW 300,000 on the loan of this case with the deceased's spouse, KRW 1301,000,000 on the loan of this case and KRW 13014,15,2014.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserted that, as the cause of the instant claim, K, L, etc. conspired to deliver the instant loan certificate to the Defendant by forging the instant loan certificate, and sought confirmation that the instant loan certificate was not a authentic document. On this point, the Defendant merely delivered the instant loan certificate to the Deceased, and without knowing whether the Plaintiff prepared the loan certificate, the instant loan certificate was a authentic document.

B. According to the statement of No. 2, the loan certificate of this case is deemed to be not the body of the deceased, but the fact that the body of the loan certificate of this case is not the body of the deceased, and the following circumstances, such as the name of the deceased and the seal of the deceased, are affixed after the name of the deceased of the loan certificate of this case, and the certificate of the personal seal impression issued by the deceased was attached as of June 25, 2013, it is insufficient to conclude that the loan certificate of this case was forged solely on the basis of the statement of No. 2 and No. 3 and No. 4.

arrow