logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2015.11.10 2015나2049
대여금
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

purport, purport, and.

Reasons

1. On January 11, 2000, Defendant C delegated to the Plaintiff, and purchased the purchase price of KRW 43.5 million (the contract amount of KRW 4.5 million and the balance of KRW 39 million) from E for a road of KRW 159 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

The Plaintiff received KRW 4.5 million from Defendant C at the time of the conclusion of the above sales contract, and paid the down payment of the said sales contract. On January 15, 2000, the Plaintiff, at the request of Defendant C, who did not pay any balance thereafter, set the amount of KRW 39 million at 6% per annum from the three months after the date of the above sales contract to the Defendants.

Defendant C paid the balance of the above sales contract with the said money, and completed the registration of ownership transfer for the instant land in the name of Defendant B.

The Plaintiff also keeps the registration certificate of the instant land as security for the said loan.

Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 39 million and damages for delay.

2. Determination

A. The Defendants asserted that the authenticity of the evidence No. 2 (hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case”) did not prepare the loan certificate of this case. The Plaintiff did not directly prepare the loan certificate of this case, but all employees of the certified judicial scrivener office who requested the registration of ownership transfer concerning the land of this case. The part in the name of Defendant B is the fact that the above certified judicial scrivener employee currency with Defendant C and affixed his seal, and the part in the name of Defendant C is the person who signed and sealed the Defendant B’s seal.

As long as the Defendants did not prepare the instant loan certificate, it should be recognized that the Defendants could have granted the Plaintiff or a certified judicial scrivener the authority to prepare the instant loan certificate. The authenticity of the instant loan certificate can be recognized, and the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is difficult to recognize.

Therefore, the authenticity of the instant loan certificate cannot be recognized.

B. As to the assertion of lease.

arrow