logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
(영문) 대전고등법원(청주) 2015.12.22 2015나10357
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

1..

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the lower court’s explanation is as follows, except for the addition of paragraph (2) to a judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion added in the trial of the first instance, the reasoning of the lower court’s acceptance of the judgment is as stated in the reasoning of the first instance judgment. Thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

“A. Each description of the evidence No. 1 to No. 8 against Defendant B (if any, the number is included; hereinafter the same shall apply).

According to witness G and H testimony of the first instance court, the Plaintiff served as an employee of the instant branch from around October 2007 to October 201, 201, and between November 1, 2011 to October 24, 2012, the amount of KRW 137,136,050 in total from the account in the name of the Defendant or F to each account in the name of the Defendant or F, as between October 24, 201, C ( husband of the Defendant) and I (son of the Defendant) jointly with the Plaintiff on October 29, 2013, one promissory note (the promissory note in this case) issued on December 10, 2013 (the promissory note in this case).

) Although it is recognized that the Plaintiff issued and notarized it, in light of the fact that each of the accounts in the name of the Defendant or F was transferred from November 1 to October 24, 2012 to the Plaintiff’s account in the name of the Plaintiff, and that the Plaintiff did not receive any document, such as a loan certificate, against the Defendant, etc., it is insufficient to recognize that the above fact of recognition alone is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff had a loan claim equivalent to the face value of the Promissory Notes in the instant case against the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

2. Additional determination

A. Since the Plaintiff’s assertion C and F borrowed money from the Plaintiff, and the issuance of the Promissory Notes to the Plaintiff was intended to raise the operating fund of the instant store operated jointly by the Defendant’s family members, it is reasonable to deem that the act was done on behalf of the Defendant, who is the business owner under the name of the Plaintiff.

(B) even if it is an unauthorized representation, the expression representation of Articles 125 and 126 of the Civil Code is recognized).

Judgment

l.p. g., p.

arrow