(영문) 의정부지방법원 2015.01.29 2014나4935

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) 의정부지방법원 2015.01.29 2014나4935

대여금

Text

1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked;

2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant is dismissed.

3...

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff asserted that he lent KRW 20 million to B on February 25, 2009, and KRW 50 million on February 26, 2009, respectively. Since the Defendant guaranteed each of the above loan obligations, the Defendant is jointly and severally liable with B to pay the Plaintiff KRW 70 million and its delay damages.

2. The judgment of the court of first instance is based on each loan certificate (A evidence 1-1-2) in which the defendant is the guarantor, but considering the result of the unmanned appraisal by the appraiser F of the court of first instance, in full view of the whole purport of the arguments by the appraiser G of the court of first instance, the signature of each "C" as stated in the evidence No. 1-1 (50 million won) and the evidence No. 1-2 (20 million won loan certificate) is not prepared by the defendant, and the seal of the above evidence No. 1-1 as stated in the evidence No. 1-2 (20 million won loan certificate) can be acknowledged as being not the defendant's unmanned seal, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the authenticity of the part of the guarantor of the above loan certificate, and thus, it cannot be admitted as evidence to prove the defendant's intent to guarantee.

In addition, in light of the amount of each of the instant loans, relationship with the following witnesses, etc., each of the testimony of the witness D, E, witness B, and H of the first instance trial alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant clearly expressed his/her intent to guarantee the above loans and obligations, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

(On the other hand, even if there is an intention to guarantee to the defendant, it appears to be by each subparagraph without compensation. In this regard, Article 3 (1) of the Special Act on the Protection of Suretys provides that "a guarantee shall take effect after the intention to guarantee is expressed in writing with the name and seal or signature of the guarantor." Thus, as long as the authenticity of each of subparagraphs 1-1 and 2 of the evidence No. 1-2 cannot be recognized, the intention of the defendant's guarantee shall be null and void.) Accordingly,

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's defendant.

참조조문

-보증인 보호를 위한 특별법 제3조 제1항

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.04.26 2015나70968

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.12.08 2014가단86804

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.02.18 2018가단5264645

-서울동부지방법원 2015.11.13 2015가단20903