(영문) 부산지방법원서부지원 2020.07.23 2019가단1822

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) 부산지방법원서부지원 2020.07.23 2019가단1822

대여금

Text

1. The Plaintiff, and Defendant B, Defendant C, and D, respectively, KRW 13,00,00 and the said KRW 13,00,000 from April 23, 2017 to July 2019.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On April 20, 2017, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 45.5 million to the network E.

On April 22, 2017, the network E prepared a loan certificate stating that “The Plaintiff borrowed KRW 45,55 million from the Plaintiff, set the interest at 8% per annum, and the principal repaid with lump-sum payment of principal shall be the end of August 2018, and shall be in accordance with the Plaintiff’s opinion as the creditor, which shall be adjusted and determined, and shall be in accordance with the Plaintiff’s opinion.” (No. 1)

B. The network E opened and managed an account under the name of the network E (hereinafter “instant account”) in the G program of F with the money received from the Plaintiff.

C. The deceased E died on November 2017, and the Defendant B’s spouse, Defendant C, and D are all heirs as the deceased E’s children.

The name of the instant account was transferred to Defendant C on the ground of inheritance after the deceased E.

[Reasons for Recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence No. 1 and Eul evidence No. 4 (the defendant asserted that Gap evidence No. 1 and Eul evidence No. 4 were forged, but in addition to the whole purport of the pleading as a result of the written appraisal by appraiser H's written appraisal, Gap evidence No. 1 is presumed to have been authenticity of Gap evidence No. 1. 1. The evidence No. 1 is presumed to have been recorded with Eul evidence No. 4 after the document being taken as evidence No. 4, namely, the document being taken as evidence No. 4 and the resident registration number and address were added, but it is difficult to view that Gap evidence No. 1 (the image of evidence No. 4) prior to the addition was a document indicating the intention of borrowing and repayment of the network E, and it is difficult to see that the content of Gap evidence No. 1 was altered solely on the basis that it was added, and it is not contrary to the presumption of intent of borrowing and repayment of the network E.

유사 판례

-부산지방법원서부지원 2019.09.27 2018가단115731

-대전지방법원천안지원 2017.05.10 2017가단100181

-부산고등법원(창원) 2015.01.15 2013나938

-광주지방법원 2015.02.06 2014나7892

-부산지방법원서부지원 2020.07.02 2019가단2719