logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원평택지원 2017.08.10 2015가단42594
청구이의
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On November 30, 2006, a loan certificate was prepared to the effect that the deceased borrowed KRW 93,00,000 from the defendant as of November 30, 2006 under the name of the defendant and the defendant's model C (the deceased's death on February 1, 2013, hereinafter "the deceased"), and that the deceased borrowed KRW 93,00,000 from the defendant as of November 30, 2009 (hereinafter "the first loan certificate of this case"), and the above KRW 93,00,000 as of December 24, 209, to the effect that the interest rate shall be 5% per annum (hereinafter "the second loan certificate of this case"). The above loan certificate is identical to the personal seal impression of the deceased.

B. On November 30, 2006, the Defendant did not pay 93,00,000 won interest rate of 5% per annum, and on November 30, 2009, the Defendant filed an application for a payment order against the Deceased for a loan payment order with the Suwon District Court 2012,448, Suwon-si District Court. Pursuant to its purport, the above court rendered on June 29, 2012 the Defendant issued an annual payment order from December 1, 2006 to the delivery date of the above payment order and 5% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment (hereinafter “instant payment order”). The above payment order was served on August 13, 2012, which became final and conclusive on August 28, 2012 (hereinafter “instant payment order”).

C. The Plaintiff was solely inherited as the deceased’s children.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 9, 33, Eul evidence No. 13-1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the deceased borrowed money from the Defendant, but did not have been liquidated prior to the preparation of the first loan certificate of this case. However, the Defendant forged the first loan certificate of this case by using the deceased’s seal impression certificate and a certificate of personal seal impression, etc. in a situation where it is impossible for the deceased to be aware of brain damage due to the brain damage caused by a low oxygen, around June 1, 2012, and the deceased and the Defendant’s mother D.

arrow