(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.05.13 2015가단208922

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.05.13 2015가단208922

채무부존재확인

Text

1. The Plaintiff’s loan obligations under a loan agreement dated August 25, 2014 against the Defendant and interest thereon;

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On August 25, 2014, Nonparty B entered “3,00,000 won”, “A”, “C”, and “S,” in the resident registration number column in the loan limit column using computer in the loan transaction agreement entered into on the Defendant’s website around August 25, 2014, Nonparty B forged the loan transaction agreement in the Plaintiff’s name, sent it by electronic mail to the Defendant, and received KRW 3,00,000,000 from the Defendant’s account in the name of the Plaintiff that was managed by the Defendant on the same day.

(hereinafter “instant loan”). (b)

B was indicted due to the fabrication, uttering, fraud, etc. of the above private document, and was convicted of eight months of imprisonment on October 15, 2015, two years of suspended execution ( Daejeon District Court 2015No2029), and the above judgment was finalized on October 23, 2015.

[Grounds for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2 evidence, Eul 1-3 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination:

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, since the loan contract in the name of the plaintiff was concluded by forging the loan contract in the name of the plaintiff, there is no loan obligation of the plaintiff against the defendant under the loan contract in the name of the plaintiff, and there is a benefit of confirmation as the defendant contests this.

B. The defendant's argument regarding the defendant's assertion is that at the time of the loan contract of this case, the defendant certified the plaintiff himself by using the mobile phone and authorized certificate in the name of the plaintiff, and the loan of this case was remitted to the bank account in the name of the plaintiff. However, considering that Eul was holding both the passbook, the passbook password, the mobile phone number, and the authorized certificate in the name of the plaintiff, the plaintiff's assertion that the loan of this case was received in collusion with Eul was clearly asserted, but it is not sufficient to recognize that the plaintiff received the loan of this case in collusion with Eul, and there is no other evidence to support it. Thus,

3. Conclusion

유사 판례

-서울남부지방법원 2016.12.13 2015가단63644

-대전지방법원 2015.06.18 2015고단1358

-광주지방법원 2012.11.22 2012고단5684

-서울남부지방법원 2021.02.03 2020가단11111

-광주지방법원 2015.01.29 2014고단4943