대여금
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.
1. A person who borrowed basic facts: The Defendant proves that the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 40 million on May 18, 201.
The repayment date of the borrowed money shall be June 5 and shall be proved to the plaintiff that the right to the goods shall not be repaid.
In principle, goods shall be stored and sold in the plaintiff's warehouse when they are sold immediately in Japan.
On May 18, 2011, a loan certificate between the Plaintiff and the Defendant (hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case”) was drawn up as follows:
B. On May 18, 201, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 40 million to the Defendant.
C. On December 1, 2011, the Plaintiff sent a certificate of content to the Defendant demanding the repayment of the borrowed amount.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that “The Defendant borrowed KRW 40 million from the Plaintiff as of June 5, 201, according to the terms and conditions of the loan certificate of this case, on or around May 18, 2011, but does not repay the loan after the due date.” Therefore, the Plaintiff is obligated to repay the loan of this case and the damages for delay.”
B. On May 18, 201, the Defendant borrowed KRW 40 million from the Plaintiff on May 18, 201, not the Defendant, but the Defendant, as C, introduced C only to the Plaintiff, and only signed the loan certificate upon the Plaintiff’s request.
In addition, it is because C was not able to use the bank account due to personal reasons when it was paid with the defendant's account.
Therefore, the defendant does not have the obligation to repay the borrowed money to the plaintiff.
'' asserts to the effect that ‘' is.
3. Considering the contents of the loan certificate of this case as indicated on the basis of the determination, there is no room to interpret that the person who concluded a monetary loan agreement with the Plaintiff and borrowed money as the Defendant.
However, in general, the interpretation of the contract is not linked only to the formal wording.