(영문) 의정부지방법원 2019.02.12 2018나206791

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 의정부지방법원 2019.02.12 2018나206791

대여금

Text

1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

Defendant (Appointed Party) and Appointor jointly and severally with the Plaintiff 60,000.

Reasons

1. The plaintiff asserts that on July 6, 2005, the plaintiff lent KRW 60 million to the designated parties B, and the period of repayment was set on January 6, 2007, and the above loan debt was jointly and severally guaranteed by the defendant C.

According to the purport of Gap evidence No. 1 and all pleadings, the defendant (Appointed Party C) and the appointed party B (hereinafter "the defendant") issued a promissory note with the amount of KRW 60 million to the plaintiff on July 6, 2005 and the due date as of January 6, 2007. On the same day, the notary public issued the said promissory note with the law firm No. 1124 on January 6, 2005, and the defendants issued the said promissory note under the name of the defendant (Appointed Party C) with the meaning of the guarantee and the fact that Eul borrowed KRW 60 million from the plaintiff.

Therefore, the Defendants are obligated to pay the Plaintiff the above KRW 60 million and damages for delay, unless there are special circumstances.

2. Judgment on the defendants' assertion

A. The Defendants asserted that the deed of promissory notes is invalid against the Defendant (Appointed Party) since B issued promissory notes with the seals and certificates of personal seal impression of the Defendant (Appointed Party) without the consent of the Defendant (Appointed Party) C.

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that B issued a promissory note No. 3 and 4 without the consent of the Defendant (Appointed Party). According to the statement in the evidence No. 3 and No. 4, it is only possible to recognize that B prepared the instant promissory note No. 3 and issued a certificate of personal seal impression on behalf of the Defendant (Appointed Party) on July 22, 2005, as well as on July 22, 2005, which was later issued by the Defendant (Appointed Party). Thus, the above assertion by the Defendants is without merit.

B. The Defendants are liable pursuant to the notarial deed of promissory notes by transferring the designated party B to E, which appears to be the Plaintiff’s spouse, to E.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원평택지원 2019.02.12 2018가단58422

-서울남부지방법원 2016.09.08 2015가단66117

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.07.07 2014나69176

-광주지방법원 2020.07.23 2019가단12775

-수원지방법원 2017.02.07 2016가단550284