logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원성남지원 2016.12.09 2016가단209008
대여금
Text

1. Defendant C’s KRW 28,00,000 and its amount shall be 5% per annum from July 21, 2009 to June 14, 2016 to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Determination as to the claim against Defendant C

(a)as shown in the reasons for the attachment of the claim;

B. Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act of the judgment by publication

2. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Defendant B along with Defendant C, the wife, and the Plaintiff’s total of KRW 28,000,000,000 from the Plaintiff on July 20, 2007, and KRW 18,000,000 on March 20, 2009 (hereinafter “the instant loan”).

(1) As the Plaintiff borrowed the loan, the Plaintiff is liable to pay the instant loan and the damages for delay thereof (negative). Even if Defendant C borrowed the loan of this case on account of negligence, as long as the loan of this case was used in Defendant B’s store operating expenses, hospital expenses, children’s school expenses, and family living expenses, the loan of this case is deemed to be an act related to the Defendants’ daily home life. Thus, Defendant B is jointly and severally liable for the Defendant C’s debt of the loan of this case pursuant to Article 832 of the Civil Act.

Therefore, Defendant B is liable to pay the Plaintiff the instant loan and damages for delay.

(2) In addition, the defendants are married with the right of representation as to the daily family affairs under Article 827 of the Civil Act. Even if the loan of this case is not about the defendants' daily home affairs, the defendant Eul is liable to act as an expression agent for the debt of the loan of this case pursuant to Article 126 of the Civil Act. Accordingly, the defendant Eul is liable to pay the plaintiff the loan of this case and the damages for delay (Third, the defendant Eul is liable to pay the loan of this case). (1) The judgment of the plaintiff is examined as to the argument. (1) The defendant Eul argues that the signature and seal of each evidence of this case was forged with the plaintiff's argument, and the document No. 1 (the copy of the certificate of deposit of cash) and No. 3 (the copy of the certificate of deposit of this case).

arrow