beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. On September 16, 2005, the Plaintiff asserted that: (a) lent KRW 20 million to the deceased’s husband (hereinafter “the deceased”); (b) on the same day, the Plaintiff stated that “the amount of KRW 20 million is KRW 20 million, interest monthly, and two copies of the repayment date; and (c) the name, signature, and resident registration number of the deceased and the Defendant,” respectively; and (d) received a loan certificate with a seal affixed on the name of the deceased and the Defendant (hereinafter “the instant loan certificate”).
In addition, on November 2005, the Plaintiff additionally lent KRW 40,000 to the Deceased and the Defendant, and as a security for additional loans KRW 20 million, the Plaintiff entered into a lease contract (hereinafter “instant lease contract”) with respect to the apartment owned by the Defendant as of KRW 60,000,000,000 for the lease deposit and the lease period until November 18, 2006.
Therefore, even if the Defendant is obligated to repay the Plaintiff the total amount of KRW 60 million around the Plaintiff, and the said money is used as living expenses, etc. necessary for the common life of the deceased and the Defendant, even if the authenticity of the above loan and lease contract is not acknowledged in preliminary, the Defendant is obligated to return it jointly with the deceased. Even if the money borrowed from the deceased exceeded the scope of his right of representation, the Plaintiff believed that the Plaintiff was authorized to prepare the above loan and lease contract on behalf of the Defendant, and on the ground that there is a justifiable reason, the Plaintiff is liable by the expression agency under Article 126 of the Civil Act.
B. According to the reasoning of the court below's determination 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1, the fact-finding results on the Suhyup Bank of this court, and witness D's testimony, according to the Plaintiff's name E on September 20, 2005, 4.6 million won in the Plaintiff's name, E's name, 15 million won in the name of D on November 8, 2005, and 20 million won in the name of D on November 24, 2005, respectively.