logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2015.09.11 2014나18429
양수금
Text

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. All the claims of the plaintiff and the plaintiff succeeding intervenor are dismissed.

3...

Reasons

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. On October 22, 1990, the defendant asserted by the plaintiff and the plaintiff succeeding intervenor entered into a credit card use contract with the Seoul Trust Bank Co., Ltd. (the Seoul Bank was merged with Han Bank on or around October 22, 1995, and it was merged with Han Bank on or around 2002) and transferred the credit card payment claim by Han Bank, one of the stock companies, which occurred by using the credit card, on February 12, 2010. The plaintiff acquired the above claim by the plaintiff's succeeding intervenor through M&C lending Co., Ltd., Ltd., Embs., Embs and Embs assets management loans. As of February 1, 2010, the defendant should pay the claim amount to the plaintiff succeeding intervenor, the final transferee of the above claim.

B. The judgment of the plaintiff and the plaintiff succeeding intervenor filed a claim for transfer money against the defendant on the premise that the defendant had a credit card user claim (transfer claim) against the defendant of Han Bank under a credit card use contract with Han Bank Co., Ltd. on October 22, 1990. Thus, the plaintiff and the plaintiff succeeding intervenor must prove the existence of transfer claim.

Therefore, in relation to the existence of the above transfer claim, since the document is a method of proving the facts requiring proof by using the author's intent expressed in the document as evidence, it should first be revealed that the document was prepared by the author's will asserted by the person who prepared the document. If such formal evidence is not recognized, it cannot be used as evidence. Thus, the evidence No. 1 (application for Credit Card Member Admission) is disputed that the defendant did not prepare it, and there is no evidence to acknowledge the authenticity, and it cannot be used as evidence, and otherwise, the defendant cannot be used as evidence.

arrow