beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
1. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. On July 20, 2012, the Plaintiff changed the name on January 7, 2008, Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) of the Defendant’s Social Loan Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) to E&P Social Co., Ltd., and changed the name on December 22, 2009 to E&P Social Loan Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”); on December 22, 2009, E&P transferred the trade name to E&P Social Loan Co., Ltd.; and on August 1, 2014, E&P changed the E&P Social Loan Co., Ltd. to A&P Social Loan Co., Ltd.
Under the premise that loans were granted to the Defendant KRW 7,00,000, the Defendant asserts that the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount stated in the purport of the claim, which was transferred before the transfer of the claim for the Defendant by the Nonparty Company.
B. First, as to whether the Defendant borrowed KRW 7,00,000 from the non-party company on July 20, 2012, the evidence No. 2 (a loan transaction agreement, evidence No. 4 and evidence No. 6 both are the same as the evidence No. 2) cannot be used as evidence because there is no evidence to acknowledge the authenticity, and rather, according to the evidence No. 3 (a summary order), B and C forged the loan transaction agreement (Evidence No. 2, No. 4, and 6) under the name of the defendant on July 20, 2012, thereby being prosecuted for the crime of forging private documents and uttering of the above investigation documents and being punished by a fine.
(Seoul District Court Decision 2016 High Court Decision 7262). There is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant borrowed the above money from the non-party company.
C. Next, even if the above loan transaction contract was not concluded by the defendant, the plaintiff asserted that the defendant approved the above loan obligation, but it is not sufficient to recognize the above loan obligation only by the statement in the evidence Nos. 7 and 9, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case does not need further review the assignment of claims, the scope of remaining loans, etc.