logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2017.04.27 2016가합104983
대여금
Text

1. The Plaintiff:

A. As regards Defendant C’s KRW 560,000,000 and its KRW 450,000,000, Defendant C, from January 9, 2012, and 110,000.

Reasons

Basic Facts

A. On January 9, 2012, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 450,000,000 to Defendant B with interest rate of KRW 37% per annum, and the due date for payment was at a public space (hereinafter “instant loan agreement”) (hereinafter “instant loan agreement”).

(2) Defendant C, the mother of Defendant B, jointly and severally guaranteed Defendant B’s obligation under the loan agreement of this case for consumption. (2) The Defendants received KRW 450,00,000 from the loan money as the same day, and the receipt that “450,000,000,000,000 from the Plaintiff, are entirely liable for the liability incurred as to the failure to perform the promise in borrowing from the Plaintiff,” respectively, signed, sealed, and stamped each letter of agreement, and issued to the Plaintiff a promissory note with the issuer B, C, and the payment place on January 9, 2012.

B. On February 16, 2012, the Plaintiff, upon entering into the instant loan agreement, lent KRW 110,00,000 to Defendant C with interest rate of KRW 3% per month and the due date for repayment at a public space (hereinafter “instant loan agreement”), Defendant C received KRW 110,00,000 as the loan details on the same day, signed, sealed, and affixed a seal on the receipt that the Plaintiff received KRW 165,00,000 at a face value, and issued a promissory note to the Plaintiff on February 16, 2012 with the place of payment and the place of issuance.

【In the absence of any dispute, the entire document shall be presumed to have been authentic, since the evidence No. 1, 2, 3, and 4 of Gap's 1 through 7, and the purport of the whole argument Gap's 1, 2, 3, and 4 are not disputed in each seal.

Defendant B asserts to the effect that the content of the Loan Agreement for Consumption No. 1 does not know itself, and Defendant C, her mother, used his name. Even if Defendant B acted to the purport of disputing the authenticity of the document, not only the signature, seal and unmanned seal but also the signature and seal affixed thereon.

arrow