beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
Reasons
1. The plaintiff's assertion
A. On March 5, 200, the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s husband (hereinafter “the deceased”) lent KRW 38 million on November 25, 1991, and KRW 7 million on March 7, 1992 to the deceased and the Defendant’s husband, respectively. The Defendant and the Deceased paid KRW 2 million on the loans as of March 7, 1992, and did not fully pay the remainder of the loans. On March 5, 200, the Plaintiff prepared two copies of each loan agreement (hereinafter “the loan agreement”) in lieu of each of the loan agreement as of KRW 38 million on December 31, 200, each of the loan agreement on December 195, 199 and each of the loan agreement on December 31, 195.
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the above joint and several liability amounting to KRW 43,00,000 and damages for delay.
B. Even if the deceased, who is not the defendant, affixed a letter of borrowing of this case, the above money was within the scope of ordinary family life as a means of maintaining the livelihood of the defendant and the deceased, who is the husband and wife, and thus, the deceased had legitimate power of representation.
C. Even if the above money is not included in the scope of ordinary household affairs, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the above joint and several liability amount and damages for delay to the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 126 of the Civil Act, since there is reasonable ground to believe that the deceased was entitled to do a legal act other than ordinary household affairs as above on behalf of the Defendant.
2. Determination
A. Each of the loan certificates (No. 1, No. 2) of this case, written in the name of the deceased and the defendant, as evidence that seems consistent with the plaintiff's above assertion, based on the respective loan certificates of this case, is written in the name of the deceased and the defendant.
It is presumed that the authenticity of the entire document is presumed to be established, as there is no dispute over the defendant's seal image.
However, the defendant's seal affixed to each of the loan certificates of this case.