beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant changed the repayment date stated in the loan certificate with D’s consent, and as long as C had comprehensively delegated the Defendant to D with respect to the repayment of the obligation to the Defendant, it should be deemed that C’s consent was included in C’s consent. Even if not, C’s constructive consent was given.
Nevertheless, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination
A. Since the crime of forgery or alteration of a private document in the relevant law refers to an unauthorized person’s preparation of a document by forging another person’s name, if the nominal owner explicitly or implicitly consented to the preparation or alteration of the private document, it does not constitute a crime of forgery or alteration of the private document. Meanwhile, even if the nominal owner did not have the real consent of the nominal owner at the time of the act, if the nominal owner knew of the fact at the time of the act, considering all objective circumstances at the time of the act, the crime of forgery or alteration of the private document is presumed not to be established. However, if the nominal owner knew of the fact that the nominal owner knew of the preparation of the document without the explicit consent or consent of the nominal owner, it cannot be readily concluded that the consent is presumed to have been obtained merely by means
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do14587, Sept. 29, 2011). (B)
Judgment
According to the records, C prepared 30 million won to repay the borrowed money to the Defendant on or before March 2, 2015, which was before the maturity date specified in the loan certificate, around December 2, 2011, before the maturity date specified in the loan certificate, and prepared money to D. However, D is said to have been prepared to pay the borrowed money to D, but D would have been aware of the Defendant after its use. As such, C's KRW 10 million was remitted directly to the Defendant, and KRW 20 million was recognized to have been delivered to D.
However, the debtor wishes to pay the debt at will prior to the due date.