(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2015.06.09 2014나3564

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) 서울북부지방법원 2015.06.09 2014나3564

대여금

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

Judgment of the first instance.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff and C are in a pro-friendly relationship, such as serving as the head of Tong and Ban, while living in Korea, and the Defendant is the husband of C.

B. C borrowed a loan of KRW 10 million from the Plaintiff on February 14, 2006, KRW 3 million on March 6, 2006, KRW 3 million on April 17, 2009, KRW 21 million on October 27, 2010, KRW 20 million on the total amount of KRW 5 million (hereinafter “instant loan”). On March 6, 2006, C borrowed each of the above borrowing acts from the Plaintiff on the loan of KRW 21 million on the loan certificate (Evidence 1, 2006, KRW 20 million on the loan certificate, KRW 5 million on April 27, 201, KRW 200, KRW 1,000 on the loan certificate (hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case”). On March 6, 2006, C issued to the Plaintiff with the seal affixed to D on the loan certificate (Evidence 1, 206, KRW 2006).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 4 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), witness D of the first instance trial, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) whether the power of representation for the loan authority or the joint and several sureties has been granted and the defendant has promised to pay the loan in direct manner, so the defendant is jointly and severally liable with C to pay the loan in question. 2) The defendant affixed the defendant's seal on the loan certificate of this case drawn up in lieu of D and drawn up in lieu of D. The above facts are insufficient to recognize that the defendant granted C the right of representation for the loan authority or the joint and several sureties at the time when the loan certificate of this case was drawn up, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

In addition, it is not sufficient to recognize that the defendant promised to repay the entire rent of this case to the plaintiff only with the statements of Gap evidence Nos. 3 through 8 and witness D of the first instance trial, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

(b) are day-to-day workers; and

유사 판례

-서울남부지방법원 2016.01.29 2015가단17788

-서울동부지방법원 2016.12.23 2016가합538

-대전고등법원 2016.04.22 2015나15410

-광주지방법원 순천지원 2018.12.20 2018가단71943

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.05.16 2015고단7486