beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The plaintiff's assertion
A. From around 2006, the Plaintiff lent money to the Defendant several times through C, which the Defendant was the Defendant’s wife, and when the principal of the loan remains approximately KRW 100 million, the Plaintiff received a loan from the Defendant with the loan principal of KRW 2 million and KRW 7 million. The Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the above loan amount of KRW 9 million and the delayed payment damages.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant Chapter 1,” and the loan amounting to KRW 9 million claimed by the Plaintiff is b.
As long as the Defendant’s place of use of the instant loan revealed by the Defendant and C falls under the scope of daily home life, even if the Defendant was not the party directly lending the instant loan from the Plaintiff, C is authorized to act for the Defendant within the scope of daily home life. Thus, the Defendant is obligated to repay the instant loan to the Plaintiff as the principal in relation to the act of borrowing C under Article 827 of the
(hereinafter referred to as “instant Chapter 2”). C.
C Even if the Defendant was unaware of at the time of borrowing the instant loan from the Plaintiff, if the Defendant used the instant loan for living expenses, the Defendant is jointly and severally liable with C to repay the instant loan to the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 832 of the Civil Act.
(hereinafter “Section 3 of this case”) 2. Judgment
A. The judgment as to Section A of this case is based on the principal claim against the Defendant, and the Plaintiff cited the Defendant’s certificate of KRW 9-1 and 2 of KRW A. The Defendant’s stamp image affixed next to the Defendant’s name stated in the above loan certificate is presumed to be the Defendant’s seal and thus, it is presumed that the authenticity of KRW A-1 and KRW 2 of the above Defendant’s stamp image is presumed to be established due to the lack of dispute between the parties. However, the Defendant’s seal affixed to the above Defendant’s seal is not the Defendant, and thus, it is not a dispute between the parties.