(영문) 청주지방법원충주지원 2017.11.23 2016가단6661

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) 청주지방법원충주지원 2017.11.23 2016가단6661

대여금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On July 28, 2010, the Plaintiff issued a certificate of borrowing that the Defendant borrowed KRW 60,000,000 from the Plaintiff on August 16, 2010 (hereinafter “the instant certificate of borrowing”).

B. The Plaintiff remitted total of KRW 86,00,000 to the account designated by B from July 28, 2010 to August 24, 2010.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1-1-3, purport of whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Plaintiff received the instant loan certificate from the Defendant and remitted the total of KRW 86,000,000 to the account designated by the Defendant. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the above loan amount of KRW 86,00,000 and delay damages.

B. The summary of the Defendant’s assertion does not mean that the Defendant borrowed the money claimed by the Plaintiff from the Plaintiff, and the Defendant’s seal affixed on the instant loan certificate is not by the corporate seal of the Defendant.

C. In the event that the holder of a title holder of the document preparation asserts the authenticity of the document, he/she must prove that the document is the document duly formed, and there is no evidence to prove that the defendant's seal affixed on the loan certificate (No. 1-1) of this case is the defendant's seal (the seal affixed on the loan certificate of this case is different from the defendant's corporate seal affixed on the certificate of the defendant's corporate seal affixed on the certificate (No. 1-1) submitted by the defendant), and there is no evidence to prove that the above loan certificate is the authentic document. Thus, the loan certificate of this case cannot be deemed to have been prepared by the defendant, and the mere fact that the defendant's representative director and B are well aware of it is insufficient to acknowledge the facts alleged by the plaintiff, and there is no evidence to prove otherwise, the plaintiff's assertion is therefore groundless

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case against the defendant is justified.

유사 판례

-서울서부지방법원 2014.01.21 2013가단8840

-수원지방법원 2017.04.07 2016나7682

-대전고등법원 2019.06.13 2018나14357

-서울남부지방법원 2014.10.16 2014나6034

-대법원 1989. 10. 24. 선고 89다카7679 판결