(영문) 의정부지방법원 2016.08.12 2015나13547

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) 의정부지방법원 2016.08.12 2015나13547

대여금

Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiffs of the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiffs are the heirs of the deceased deceased deceased on September 15, 2014.

B. With respect to 7 square meters in Mapo-gu Seoul, Seoul, which is owned by the Defendant, the establishment registration of the right to collateral security (hereinafter “instant right to collateral security”) was completed on August 24, 2009, with the maximum debt amount of KRW 44,50,000 on August 24, 2009, the debtor, the defendant, the mortgagee D, and the grounds for registration as the contract.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 6 evidence (including each number in case of additional number), Eul 2 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. 1) The plaintiffs' assertion D (hereinafter "the deceased") lent KRW 61 million to the defendant from March 25, 2009 to August 21, 2009, and the mortgage of this case was established to secure the above loan.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay each of the 22,750,000 won (=the maximum debt amount of the right to collateral security of this case 44,50,000 x the inheritance share ratio 1/2) and damages for delay within the scope of the above loan to the Plaintiffs who inherited the deceased.

B) The Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant borrowed KRW 20 million from the Deceased on August 24, 2009 and did not borrow KRW 61 million in excess of the above loan. The Defendant’s assertion that each of the loans submitted by the Plaintiffs related to the above loan (the evidence Nos. 9-1 through 5 (the same as the evidence No. 10-1 through 5) and the “each of the instant loans” (hereinafter “each of the instant loans”).

[2] If there is no fact that the Defendant prepared or sealed the seal in relation to the document, and if the seal imprinted by the holder’s seal affixed on the private document, barring special circumstances, it is presumed that the authenticity of the seal imprint was made, i.e., the act of affixing the seal was based on the intent of the holder of the document, barring special circumstances, and once the authenticity of the seal imprint is presumed to have been made, the authenticity of the document is presumed to have been made in accordance with

However, the above presumption is drawn up.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제358조

유사 판례

-대법원 2016.03.10 2013다59630

-서울고등법원 2015.04.17 2014나2028754

-부산고등법원 2016.07.07 2014나53905

-춘천지방법원 2018.02.14 2017나52044

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.12.04 2015나26701