logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 안양지원 2021.01.12 2019가단10062
대여금
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 deposited KRW 70,00,000 on June 30, 2016, (1) with the bank account under the name of the Defendant (hereinafter “the instant bank account”); (2) KRW 30,00,000 on August 5, 2016; (3) KRW 15,00,000 on August 10, 2016; and (4) KRW 19,00,000 on August 18, 2016; (3) KRW 10,00,000 on September 6, 2016; and (6) KRW 70,00,000 on September 70, 2016; and 70,000,70,000 on September 16, 2016; and (7) KRW 10,000,00 on August 10, 2017;

B. Around August 1, 2019, the Defendant’s father Nonparty D entered the Defendant’s name and personal information on the loan certificate (hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case”) with the Defendant and the Defendant’s seal affixed thereon, on the following grounds:

Borrowing Money Certificate

1.Lump Sum: The above-mentioned amounts will be borrowed and agreed to:

2. The due date: The debtor on August 1, 2019: B (the defendant's father) above: D (the defendant's father) amount includes the amount of 100 million won on August 5, 2016 and the final amount of the loan is the full amount of the loan. The above loan amount is the full amount of the debt. [founded ground] The fact that there is no dispute on the grounds of recognition, the entries in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings;

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is obligated to pay to the Defendant the amount of KRW 200,000,000 as of August 31, 2019, because the Plaintiff leased KRW 200,000 to the Defendant. Thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff a loan of KRW 200,000,000 and the delayed damages therefrom.

B. The defendant's assertion is limited to the fact that the father D was allowed to use the deposit account in the name of the defendant, and there was no borrowing money from the plaintiff or preparation and delivery of the loan certificate in this case to the plaintiff.

3. Determination

A. As to the authenticity of the evidence No. 1 (B) No. 1 (B), there is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that the following person’s name attached to the evidence No. 1 was based on the seal of the above defendant.

However, above.

arrow