(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.01.31 2016나81651

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.01.31 2016나81651

대여금

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff had a loan claim of USD 226,00 with the Defendant’s words C, and the Defendant offered real estate under the name of the Defendant on September 4, 2014, and agreed to make and deliver a loan certificate to KRW 100 million among them on October 17, 2014, and thereafter, made a substitute payment to C by obtaining a loan of real estate under the name of the Defendant as security and paying a part of the obligation to C.

Therefore, the defendant should pay KRW 100,000,000 to the plaintiff.

2. On October 17, 2014, there are evidence No. 1, No. 7 (the same shall apply to evidence No. 18-2), and No. 20 with a loan certificate submitted in the instant case by the Defendant’s name as of October 17, 2014.

According to the results of appraisal D by the party appraisal appraiser D, it is recognized that each seal affixed to the defendant's name and the resident registration number of No. 1 and No. 20 are inconsistent with the defendant's seal, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the establishment of the petition.

The defendant's name and the seal affixed on the side of the resident registration number No. 7 are identical to the defendant's seal.

There is no evidence to prove the authenticity of Gap evidence No. 7, such as the defendant's signing or sealing it.

The Defendant: (a) concluded that the Defendant completed the loan certificate and taken pictures with the Defendant sent the Kakakao Stockholm to C; and (b) the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff was the above loan certificate prepared by the Defendant, but it is difficult to recognize it solely with the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 10 and 12.

According to the statement of Gap evidence No. 10, and the result of the appraisal by Gap's appraiser D, the defendant's signature on the side of the defendant's name does not coincide with the defendant's seal, and the defendant's signature on the side of the defendant's name is recognized, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the authenticity.

In full view of the contents of Gap evidence 3 and Eul evidence 14, Gap evidence 3 (the delegation letter) shall be the whole purport of the pleadings.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.11.17 2014가단132233

-대전지방법원 2017.01.20 2015나9972

-춘천지방법원 2015.08.13 2014나3652

-대구지방법원 2019.01.23 2018나314408

-서울북부지방법원 2016.11.25 2015가단137173