logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원서부지원 2017.10.19 2015가합2097
대여금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Loan amount of 1.45,00,000 won on January 25, 2013: 30.45,00,00 won on the loan certificate of 15,00,00 won on February 24, 2014; 40,000 won on the loan certificate of 10,00 won on March 28, 2014; 15,000,00 won on the loan certificate of 10,000 won on May 15, 200, 30. 10,000 won on the loan certificate of 10,005,00 won on May 31, 2014; 13, 100,000 won on the loan certificate of 1.30,000 won on the loan certificate of 10,000 won on the loan certificate of 20,000 won on the loan certificate of 15,000 won.

A. From January 25, 2013 to September 30, 2015, the Plaintiff lent a total of KRW 383,000,000 to Nonparty C, who is the Defendant’s wife, over 17 occasions as indicated in the following table.

B. The Plaintiff, while lending money to C, prepared each loan certificate (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “each loan certificate of this case”). The above loan certificate is written by the Defendant as the guarantor or joint borrower, and the Defendant’s name and the seal is affixed on the side of the resident registration number.

C. On August 31, 2016, C was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for one year and eight months on December 1, 2016 and the above judgment became final and conclusive on March 24, 2017, on the ground of the fraud that C, by deceiving the Plaintiff and by deceiving the said KRW 383,00,000 under the pretext of the loan from the Plaintiff even though C was unable to repay money at the time of borrowing money from the Plaintiff at the time of borrowing money.

(Seoul District Court 2016 Highest 1671 case) d.

In addition, C, at the time of borrowing money from the Plaintiff, entered the name, address, etc. of the Defendant in each loan certificate of this case, which is the husband of this case, and forged each of the loan certificates of this case by affixing the Defendant’s seal imprint, which was previously possessed, onto the name of the Defendant.

arrow