(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2018.02.22 2016나5072

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) 서울서부지방법원 2018.02.22 2016나5072

차용금

Text

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) on July 25, 2005, the date of repayment set as of October 25, 2005, the Plaintiff lent KRW 25 million to the Defendant and the Defendant’s husband C, and (b) on January 25, 2006, KRW 50 million, respectively, by lending KRW 25 million.

After that, on October 23, 2006, the defendant repaid the above KRW 28.65 million among the above KRW 50 million, and prepared a receipt (Evidence A2) for the remainder of KRW 2,1350,000.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the remaining loan 2,1350,000 won and damages for delay from October 24, 2006 to the plaintiff.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant recognized the above 1-25 million won loan and prepared a promissory note (Evidence A (Evidence A (Evidence A) to the Plaintiff is not disputed between the parties, but the above loan seems to have been fully repaid on October 23, 2006.

B. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the loan of KRW 25 million.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendant prepared and delivered a promissory note (No. 9) equivalent to the borrowed amount at the time of the borrowing, and on October 23, 2006, the receipt (No. 2) for the remaining amount of KRW 2,1350,000,000. However, there is no dispute between the parties that the above promissory note and the receipt cannot be recognized as the authenticity (the seal attached to the defendant's name of each of the above documents is based on the defendant's seal). However, according to the result of appraisal by the party appraiser G, each of the above documents appears to have been written by C with the defendant's signature and the seal affixed by the defendant, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that C had a legitimate authority to represent the defendant at the time of the seal affixed. Accordingly, each of the above documents cannot be deemed to have been written by the defendant's intent).

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim based on the premise that the defendant borrowed the above 2 loans from the plaintiff is without merit.

C. The plaintiff.

유사 판례

-서울남부지방법원 2018.08.23 2018나54703

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2019.09.06 2018가합1117

-의정부지방법원 2015.01.23 2014나9732

-춘천지방법원 2015.08.11 2015가단93

-부산지방법원 2018.09.14 2018나47462