logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2016.09.22 2015가단49698
대여금
Text

1. Defendant B’s KRW 100,000,000 and interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from October 24, 2015 to the date of full payment.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 2003, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 267,94,000 to the Defendants by means of remitting KRW 267,94,00,00 to the Defendants, after about one month of lending KRW 200,000,00 to the Defendants, he heard that the Plaintiff would jointly and severally repay the interest KRW 200,000,000,000,000,000,000 to tin General Construction (ju).

B. On November 11, 2003, Defendant C prepared a cash custody certificate stating the amount of KRW 400 million to the Plaintiff.

C. On November 28, 2007, Defendant B drafted a loan certificate stating the amount of KRW 400 million to the Plaintiff, and on November 28, 2007, the date of repayment on November 27, 2008.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Gap evidence 3-1 to 3, Gap evidence 4-1 and 2-2, witness Eul's testimony, the purport of whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of claim, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay 100 million won (the amount claimed by the Plaintiff) out of the loans to the Plaintiff, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from October 24, 2015 to the date of full payment, as the Plaintiff seeks.

3. Defendant B’s assertion is justified to the effect that Defendant B merely entered his name, resident registration number, and address in blank by coercion of Defendant B, but did not prepare the loan certificate (Evidence A2) submitted by the Plaintiff.

The evidence No. 2 was presumed to have established the authenticity of the entire document due to the lack of dispute over the signature portion of Defendant B, and the Plaintiff later added its content in blank.

Since there is no evidence to prove that the evidence was prepared by coercion or coercion of the defendant B, the above evidence defense of the defendant B is without merit.

4. Determination as to Defendant C’s assertion

A. Defendant C has a defense that the Plaintiff’s loan claim of this case expired by prescription.

arrow