logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2018.09.21 2018나2004688
청구이의
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal and the defendant's incidental appeal are all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as to this case is that the court of first instance, citing the reasoning of the judgment, i.e., “each entry of evidence Nos. 3 through 9, 27, and 28” from 5th to 9th 5th 19 of the judgment of the court of first instance, i.e., “each entry of evidence Nos. 3 through 9, 27, and 29”, and i.e., each entry of evidence Nos. 3 to 3 through 9, 27, and 29 of the court of first instance as the grounds for appeal, and the defendant’s assertion that each

2. Determination on the grounds of appeal and the grounds of incidental appeal

A. On the grounds of appeal by the plaintiff, the plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff cannot be held liable for the above loan certificate since the plaintiff's expression of intent stated in the above loan certificate constitutes a false declaration of intention or a false declaration of intent as invalid or a false declaration of intent as it constitutes a false declaration of intention as it constitutes a false declaration of intention and a false declaration of intent as stated in the above loan certificate, according to subparagraph 3 (C), subparagraph 4 (Notice of Reasons for Non-prosecution) and subparagraph 6 (C).

2) However, even if the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court of first instance presented by the Plaintiff at the trial (Evidence A7) is presented, it is insufficient to acknowledge the grounds for invalidation or revocation of the Plaintiff’s assertion, such as that the Plaintiff, at the request of the Defendant, prepared the above loan certificate without the intent to bear the debt of the loan, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

As shown in the plaintiff's argument, Gap evidence Nos. 3 and 6 do not have any evidence to acknowledge the authenticity, or it is difficult to believe it as it is in light of the relationship between C and the plaintiff, and evidence No. 4.

arrow