logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.11.24 2016나6936
대여금
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. From November 2007, the Defendant had been in charge of accounting, etc. while working for an entertainment drinking club with the trade name “D” (hereinafter “instant entertainment drinking club”). At the time, the said entertainment drinking club was registered under the name of the Defendant.

B. On August 10, 2010, C borrowed KRW 200 million from the Plaintiff and prepared a cash loan certificate for the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the instant loan certificate”). The said loan certificate was written as the creditor, the debtor, C, the guarantor, the loan of KRW 260 million, the due date of payment on July 10, 201, and 2.5% per month. The Defendant signed and sealed the debtor’s column.

C. In addition, the defendant signed and sealed the power of attorney to prepare a notarial deed on promissory notes with a face value of KRW 260 million on the same day, and the above power of attorney, the defendant's certificate of personal seal impression, and the certified copy of the certificate

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, it is reasonable to view that the defendant agreed that C shall be responsible for and reimburseing KRW 200 million borrowed from the plaintiff (hereinafter "the loan of this case") by signing and sealing the loan of this case in his name with the signature and seal on the loan of this case under the debtor's name. Thus, the defendant is liable to pay KRW 200 million and damages for delay to the plaintiff pursuant to the above agreement, unless there

B. The defendant's assertion 1) The defendant argues that the name lender is only the person who borrowed the loan in this case. The defendant merely signed and sealed the certificate of loan in this case and the power of attorney by simply lending the debtor's name upon the request of the plaintiff and the debtor C, which is the creditor, and the plaintiff also was well aware of this fact, so the person who actually bears the obligation to the plaintiff.

arrow