(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.02.19 2018가단22419

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.02.19 2018가단22419

채무부존재확인

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff lent the Plaintiff’s account number, identification card, and mobile phone to C in response to C’s request.

B. On June 5, 2017, C changed the Plaintiff’s bank account password, received an authorized certificate, and then applied for a loan for a mobile Internet loan product to the Defendant under the name of the Plaintiff as the Plaintiff. On the same day, C applied for a loan of KRW 16,00,000 in the name of the Plaintiff, 10.9% per annum, overdue interest rate, 22.9% per annum, and 66 months per digital signature during the lending period (hereinafter “instant loan”). The said loan was transferred to the Plaintiff’s account.

C. The letter of credit transaction regarding the instant loan is an authorized certificate issued in the name of the Plaintiff and issued on June 5, 2017. The term of validity of an authorized certificate used in a digital signature is from June 5, 2017 to December 12, 2017.

C by February 2, 2018, under the instant loan agreement, paid the principal amount of KRW 198,970 and interest.

E. C was indicted due to the above criminal acts, etc. for fabrication of private documents, uttering of falsified documents, and fraud, and on October 25, 2017, Jinwon District Court rendered a sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for three years to C.

This ruling became final and conclusive on January 5, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination of the parties' arguments

A. The summary of the argument (1) The loan contract of this case of this case of this case is concluded without being delegated by C with the authority to conclude the loan contract of this case by the plaintiff, by deceiving the plaintiff and forging private documents with an identification card and cellular phone, etc., and by pretending the plaintiff. Thus, the loan contract of this case is null and void against the plaintiff, and there is no debt relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant.

(2) The mobile phone in the name of the Plaintiff at the time of the instant loan by the Defendant.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.12.13 2018가단5090745

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.04.06 2015가단5294126

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.09.05 2018나12741

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.03.18 2014가단181457

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.05.26 2015가단140842