logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주고등법원 (전주) 2018.01.18 2017나10027
대여금
Text

1. Of the parts against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance, the part ordering payment in excess of the following:

Reasons

1. Basic facts and Plaintiff’s assertion

A. The reasons for this part of this Court’s acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows.

Except as mentioned in paragraph (1), it shall be quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of paragraphs 1 and 2.

나. 고쳐 쓰는 부분 ◎ 제1심 판결 이유 제1의 가.

Paragraph (1)(the "Loan of November 5, 2004") is as follows:

『원고는 2004. 11. 5. 선정자 C에게 이자 월 2%, 변제기 2005. 8.로 정하여 6,000만 원을 대여하였고, 그러한 내용이 담긴 차용증서(갑 제1호증)가 작성되었다. 위 차용증서에는 선정자 C의 남편인 피고와 딸인 선정자 D이 연대보증인으로 서명, 날인되어 있다.』 ◎ 제1심 판결 4쪽 14행 중 『(갑 제2호증)』을 『(갑 제3호증)』으로 고친다.

◎ 제1심 판결 4쪽 각주 2) 중 『7,500만 원(= 300만 원 × 25회)』을 『7,800만 원(= 300만 원 × 26회)』로 고친다. ◎ 제1심 판결 5쪽 5행 중 『(갑 제2호증)』을 『(갑 제5호증) 으로 고친다.

2. Loans provided by Selection C and joint and several obligations provided by Defendant and Selections D;

A. The reasoning for this part of the court’s acceptance of the judgment of the first instance is as follows with respect to the assertion that the defendant added or emphasized by this court.

The addition shall be determined as follows:

The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of Paragraph 3 of the Reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, and it is quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

(Evidence of facts in the first instance court and determination are justified even if the evidence submitted to the court was presented to this court. (B)

Additional Judgment 1 2010

7. As to the loan obligations of the 25.25. The Defendant et al. asserted that the Selection C did not borrow KRW 30 million from the Plaintiff on July 25, 2010.

However, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 13 and 14, "Appointed C" was 26 order of July 25, 2010, the plaintiff's 30 million Won.

arrow