(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2014.09.18 2013가단5031802

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 2014.09.18 2013가단5031802

대여금

Text

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The parties' assertion

A. On September 28, 2007, the Plaintiff’s asserted bankruptcy debtor, the Japanese Savings Bank (hereinafter “Japan Savings Bank”) loaned 4 billion won to Defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant A”) at the rate of 10% per annum, 25% per annum (hereinafter “instant loan”). The repayment date was extended several times thereafter, and the repayment date was finally extended on August 28, 201.

At the time of extension of the repayment date, Defendant B guaranteed Defendant A’s debt of the instant loan.

Defendant A lost the benefit of time by delinquency in paying interest thereafter, and as of March 4, 2013, the principal and interest of the instant loan is KRW 5,570,850,611.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff, as a part of the claim against the Defendants, seek payment of KRW 410 million and damages for delay.

B. Defendant A’s assertion of the Defendants needs to prepare and supplement the documents omitted out of the existing loans in order to prepare for the audit by the Financial Supervisory Service, and thus, Defendant A only delivered company name and seal impression to the employees of the Japanese Savings Bank upon the request of the Japanese Savings Bank, which is the cooperation month. The employees of the Japanese Savings Bank arbitrarily forged the company name and seal impression in the documents related to the instant loan agreement of the Plaintiff’s assertion.

Therefore, since the loan agreement of this case was not concluded between the Japanese Savings Bank and the defendant A, the plaintiff's claim is unfair.

2. In light of the Plaintiff’s assertion, the fact that the instant loan agreement was concluded between the Japanese Savings Bank and the Defendant A is examined, and if the stamp image affixed on the document is displayed by his/her seal, barring any special circumstance, the authenticity of the stamp image is actually presumed to have been formed, i.e., the act of affixing the seal, based on the intention of the titleholder, barring any special circumstance. Once the authenticity of the stamp image is presumed, the authenticity of the entire document is presumed to have been established,

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.02.16 2016가단5007183

-서울중앙지방법원 2014.06.12 2012가합541397

-서울동부지방법원 2019.01.30 2018나970

-대구지방법원 2015.01.06 2014가단29657

-수원지방법원성남지원 2020.05.14 2019가단554