(영문) 청주지방법원 2017.11.03 2017가합312

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) 청주지방법원 2017.11.03 2017가합312

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 key issue of the instant case asserts that the Defendant is liable for the full-time repayment of KRW 466,161,256, and interest or delay damages on the loans, as the Plaintiff entered into two loan transaction agreements with the Defendant and implemented loans of KRW 220,00,000 on November 30, 201, and KRW 250,000 on August 16, 2011.

If the stamp image of the person in whose name the document is affixed is affixed to a document, unless there are special circumstances, it shall be presumed that the authenticity of the stamp image is created, i.e., the act of affixing the seal is based on the will of the person in whose name the document is prepared, and once the authenticity of the stamp image is presumed, the authenticity of the entire document shall be presumed. However, if it is confirmed that the act of affixing the seal was done by a person other than the person in whose name the document is written, the person in whose name the document is written, is liable to prove that the act of affixing the stamp is based on

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da37831, Sept. 24, 2009). There is no dispute between the parties that: (a) the Defendant’s name, based on the evidence Nos. 2 and the evidence Nos. 4 (each loan transaction agreement) is based on the Defendant’s seal.

However, there is no dispute between the parties as well as the fact that the following seals attached to the defendant's name with Gap evidence 2 and Gap evidence 4 are affixed by other persons who are not the defendant.

However, it is insufficient to recognize that the person who affixed the Defendant’s seal on each loan transaction agreement has the authority to affix the seal only with the partial descriptions of the evidence Nos. 5 and 11, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the evidence Nos. 2 and 4 cannot be used as evidence.

Furthermore, there is not sufficient evidence to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff lent the amount stipulated in each loan transaction agreement to the Defendant solely on the basis of the evidence Nos. 1, 3, 5, and 11.

참조판례

-대법원 2009. 9. 24. 선고 2009다37831 판결

유사 판례

-청주지방법원제천지원 2017.09.06 2016가단2730

-부산고등법원 2020.02.06 2019나53894

-춘천지방법원 2017.01.20 2016나1162

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.12.24 2018나77540