(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2018.10.18 2017나59138

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) 서울남부지방법원 2018.10.18 2017나59138

대여금

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

1. In the first instance court’s determination on the legitimacy of an appeal for subsequent completion, the fact that both a duplicate of the complaint of this case against the defendant and a notice of date for pleading, etc. against the defendant were served by public notice and the pleading was proceeded on July 12, 2017, and the judgment in favor of the plaintiff was also rendered on July 12, 2017. The original copy of the judgment in the first instance was also served on the defendant by public notice, and the fact that the defendant filed an appeal for subsequent completion on August 7, 2017 with the knowledge that the judgment was given by public notice on August 7, 2017, with the knowledge that it

In such a case, the defendant was unable to observe the peremptory appeal period because he was unaware of the progress and result of the lawsuit of this case due to a cause not attributable to himself. Thus, the appeal of this case filed within two weeks after the cause has ceased to exist is lawful.

2. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the evidence Nos. 1 and 19, the Plaintiff and the Defendant asserted that the above date was forged on January 27, 2015.

As seen later, the authenticity of the instant agreement is presumed to have been established, and there is no other evidence to deem that the said document was forged, and the authenticity of the said document, which is a disposal document, is recognized.

A written agreement on alcoholic beverage transaction (hereinafter “instant agreement”) to the effect that “the Plaintiff is a alcoholic beverage supplier and the Defendant is to supply alcoholic beverages for 36 months from the date of conclusion of the contract, and the Plaintiff lends KRW 60,000,000 to the Defendant,” and the Defendant prepared a loan certificate to the effect that “the Defendant borrowed KRW 30,000,000 from the Plaintiff and repaid on June 30, 2015,” around March 3, 2015 (hereinafter “the instant loan certificate”).

3. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. On January 27, 2015, the Plaintiff lent KRW 60,000,00 to the Defendant, and around March 3, 2015, the Plaintiff lent KRW 30,000 to the Defendant.

유사 판례

-서울서부지방법원 2018.09.20 2018나255

-수원지방법원 2019.06.14 2019나347

-수원지방법원 2016.05.26 2015나44998

-부산지방법원 2021.04.16 2020나3014

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.06.15 2015나62523