logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원안양지원 2017.05.26 2016가합1286
대여금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. On May 24, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a monetary loan agreement with the Defendant on the loan of KRW 500,000,000, interest rate of KRW 10,000,000 per month (2%) and on May 24, 2013. The Plaintiff was paid interest until February 24, 2013. As such, the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff the above loan and interest thereon after February 25, 2013. (2) The Defendant’s spouse, the Defendant’s spouse, borrowed KRW 500,00,000 from D, the Plaintiff’s spouse, with the business funds, and there was no fact that the Defendant prepared and sealed the evidence of subparagraph 1 (Evidence).

2. If, barring any special circumstance, the authenticity of the signature affixed to the signatureer’s seal affixed to the document of determination is actually presumed to have been made by the signatureer’s will, i.e., the act of affixing the seal is based on the signatureer’s will, barring any special circumstance, and once the authenticity of the seal is presumed to have been made, the authenticity of the entire document is presumed to have been made pursuant to Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Act. However, if the act of affixing the seal is proved to have been made by a person other than the nameer’s name, such presumption is broken. As such, the person who submitted the document bears the responsibility to prove that the act of affixing the seal is based on a legitimate title delegated by the nameer’s name (Supreme Court Decision 94Da41324, Jun. 30, 1995). Since there is no dispute between the parties that affixed the Defendant’s seal on the certificate of provisional loan that

However, the plaintiff failed to prove that C has the right of representation, and C has the right of representation as the husband of the defendant, and it was believed that C had the right of representation for the defendant, and that C had the right of representation for the defendant.

Even if it is not recognized that C had the power of representation, the expression representation under Article 126 of the Civil Code is established.

arrow