(영문) 광주고등법원 2017.08.11 2017나185 | 리걸엔진

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) 광주고등법원 2017.08.11 2017나185

대여금

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the court of first instance.

Reasons

1. According to the purport of Gap evidence No. 1 and Eul evidence No. 1 and the whole arguments, the plaintiff extended money to co-defendant B from around 2003 to the court of first instance, but did not receive payment. Accordingly, on February 25, 2004, the plaintiff agreed to determine the total amount of loans up to the time of the co-defendant B and the defendant No. 1 and the defendant No. 1 and to pay interest at the rate of 1.5% per month until December 30, 2004 (hereinafter "the loan of this case") can be acknowledged.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. 1) The Plaintiff’s joint and several sureties’s joint and several sureties’s assertion 1) Co-Defendant B, the first instance court, entrusted by the Defendant’s Appointor, and on behalf of the Defendant Appointor, prepared a document that the Defendant’s obligation to the instant loan to the Plaintiff was jointly and severally guaranteed by the Defendant Appointor, so the Defendant Appointor is jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff the instant loan and delay damages to the Plaintiff. (2) The Defendant Appointor’s certificate No. 1 cannot be used as evidence because there is no other evidence to prove that the following machines under the name of the Defendant Appointor are the Defendant Appointor’s intent, and there is no other evidence to prove that the Defendant Appointor gave his power to make a document in the name of the Defendant Appointor’s joint and several sureties, and there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

B. 1 Plaintiff’s assertion on the ground of ordinary home affairs, even if the Defendant did not grant the right of representation to Co-Defendant B on the debt of the instant loan, the Co-Defendant B of the first instance trial did not grant the right of representation to Co-Defendant B on the part of the Defendant’s wife, operating expenses, family living expenses, educational expenses for children, large ancillary marriage expenses, severance expenses for the Defendant, and Gwangju City in the name of the Defendant

유사 판례

-서울남부지방법원 2019.08.13 2018가단245928

-서울서부지방법원 2018.11.15 2018나36391

-수원지방법원성남지원 2014.04.04 2013가단36209

-부산고등법원 2015.06.09 2012나3203

-대법원 2008. 4. 10. 선고 2007다36308 판결