logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2015.01.16 2014나5560
대여금
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

purport, purport, and.

Reasons

1. There is no dispute between the parties to whom Defendant C, on December 31, 2008, issued a cashier’s checks of KRW 85 million from Nonparty D, the Plaintiff’s mother, on his own opinion and on December 31, 2008.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Upon receiving the request from the Defendant C, who is the birth partner, to lend money for the rent of the rent of the rent of the rent of the rent of the rent of the rent of the rent of the rent of the rent of the rent of the rent of the loan from Nonparty E, the husband of the loan. On December 31, 2008, E and D leased the amount of KRW 85 million to Defendant C, the husband of the Defendant C, at the rate of 24% per annum on June 30, 2009, and Defendant C jointly and severally guaranteed the above loan of the above loan of KRW 85 million. D and E transferred the loan of the above loan of KRW 85 million to the Plaintiff on September 15, 2014, and notified the Defendants of the above transfer of the rent of the loan of KRW 85 million by delivery of the preparatory document as of October 16, 2014. Accordingly, the Defendants jointly and severally paid the above amount of KRW 85 million to the Defendants under the name of Defendant E-1308.

B. According to the result of the judgment of the court of first instance, the above fact alone is insufficient to acknowledge the authenticity of the evidence No. 1, and it is not possible to use the evidence No. 1 as evidence, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the statement of the evidence No. 2, No. 7 through 10, No. 12, and No. 13 (including the number in case of each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), No. 1, No. 2, No. 3, and No. 4.

① Defendant B’s seal affixed on the above loan certificate is entirely different from that affixed on Defendant B’s certificate of seal impression, and Defendant B prepared the above document.

arrow