logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.07.03 2016나56853
부당이득금
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On July 2, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit to confirm the existence of an obligation (Seoul Central District Court 2013Kadan508952) by asserting that “The Plaintiff did not have signed the joint and several guarantee contract on the loan obligation of KRW 5 million to the non-party company C, and thus, the said loan obligation is not jointly and severally liable for the said loan obligation.”

In this regard, the non-party company did not sign the contract on the joint and several guarantee of the plaintiff in the above procedure.

Even in the telephone call with the employees of the non-party company, the plaintiff clearly stated that the plaintiff consented to the joint and several guarantee of the above loan obligation and signed on the joint and several guarantee contract, and the defendant company sent documents related to the joint and several guarantee to the defendant company, and it is not so.

In addition, the plaintiff asserts that the non-party company was deprived of the non-party company in the above manner, and the non-party company was damaged by the non-party company's loaning KRW 5 million to C, and sought the payment of joint and several sureties, and filed a preliminary counterclaim to seek damages (Seoul Central District Court 2013Da50504).

(hereinafter “instant litigation”). (b)

In the instant litigation procedure, the Plaintiff asserted that two voice files recorded a conversation between Nonparty Company’s employees and the Plaintiff were compiled and fabricated, and applied for an appraisal as to whether to edit the said voice files. The said court accepted the Plaintiff’s above request for appraisal and entrusted the Defendant, who is the representative of “D”, with an appraisal as to whether to edit the said voice files.

C. On January 13, 2014, the Defendant submitted to the above court an appraisal statement stating that “each of the above voice files is presumed to have no sound specification due to artificial editing, manipulation, and sound pressure adjustment.”

1. He.

arrow