(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.01.14 2015가단44317

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) 수원지방법원 2016.01.14 2015가단44317

대여금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

3. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff’s husband C and the Defendant’s husband D have operated the Plaintiff Company E together from the end of 2009 to April 2012.

B. On July 9, 2010, the Plaintiff’s husband C entered “A” from the Defendant’s husband D with the Plaintiff, the Defendant, the Defendant, the borrower, the loan amount of KRW 26 million, the due date of payment of KRW 3% on July 10, 201, and the interest rate of KRW 3% on July 10, 201, and the Defendant’s seal attached to the loan certificate No. 1 (hereinafter “the loan certificate”).

(1) A. (No. 1) was issued (the fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, the entry of Gap evidence No. 1, and the purport

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The husband C of the Plaintiff’s assertion on behalf of the Plaintiff is KRW 26 million to the Defendant on July 9, 2010 (hereinafter “the instant money”).

(2) The Defendant, as a debtor who borrowed the instant money, is obligated to pay the principal amount of KRW 35,829,040 (i.e., KRW 9,829,040) and damages for delay. The Defendant’s assertion 2) did not borrow the instant money from the Plaintiff, and there was no fact that the Defendant borrowed the instant money from the Plaintiff, and there was no fact that the Defendant paid the right of representation to borrow the instant money to D.

The loan certificate of this case is forged.

B. 1) Determination 1) If the stamp image of the person in whose name the document is affixed is printed out by his seal, barring any special circumstance, the authenticity of the stamp image shall be presumed to have been created, i.e., the act of affixing the seal is based on the will of the person in whose name the document is written, and once the authenticity of the stamp image is presumed to have been established, the authenticity of the entire document shall be presumed to have been established. However, if it is revealed that the act of affixing the seal was carried out by a person other than the person in whose name the document was written, the person in whose name the document was affixed shall be liable to prove the fact that the act of affixing the stamp is based on a legitimate title delegated by the person in whose name the document was written (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da378

참조판례

-대법원 2009. 9. 24. 선고 2009다37831 판결

유사 판례

-전주지방법원 2018.10.02 2018가단215

-전주지방법원 2019.05.03 2018가단27531

-수원지방법원 2018.11.27 2018가단8091

-수원지방법원 오산시법원 2018.06.14 2017가단302

-부산지방법원 2017.11.30 2017나3298