logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2017.10.19 2016가단28580
채무부존재확인
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On October 5, 2015, under the Plaintiff’s name, a credit loan agreement of KRW 5 million was concluded between the Defendant and the Defendant on the condition of repayment of the principal and interest equal for 36 months through call center (hereinafter “instant loan agreement”). The Defendant wired KRW 5 million to the passbook (Account Number B) in the name of the Plaintiff pursuant to the said agreement.

B. From November 26, 2015 to June 27, 2016, a total of KRW 903,058 was repaid on a total of nine occasions, and the outstanding loans as of June 27, 2016 were KRW 4,096,942.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4 and 5

2. Issues and judgments

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The instant loan is asserted by the Plaintiff C (Death on July 17, 2016; hereinafter “the deceased”).

(2) The Plaintiff is not obligated to repay the above loan obligations to the Defendant, since the Plaintiff received the loan by gathering the Plaintiff’s name without the Plaintiff’s consent. (2) Even if the Plaintiff received the loan in this case by gathering the Plaintiff’s name, the Plaintiff had the basic power of attorney against the Plaintiff, and the Defendant has a justifiable reason to believe that the Plaintiff exercised his authority by taking the procedure for identification at the time of the loan in this case. Therefore, the Plaintiff is obligated to repay the loan obligations to the Defendant according to the apparent agent responsibility under Article 126 of the Civil Act.

B. According to the records in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and 5 whether the plaintiff directly applied for the instant loan, it is reasonable to view that the deceased was granted the instant loan from the defendant on October 5, 2015, by gathering the name of the plaintiff on October 5, 2015.

① The Plaintiff, at the time of operating both the Deceased and the Chinese cafeteria, who is a friendly student in around 2005, delegated all matters concerning the business to the Deceased.

arrow