대여금 등
1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. Defendant B borrowed KRW 50 million from the Plaintiff on several occasions.
On July 29, 2010, Defendant B prepared a certificate of loan of KRW 50 million with the due date as of March 24, 2011, Defendant B signed and sealed the name of Defendant C and the name of Defendant C at that end, and delivered it to the Plaintiff.
B. Defendant B borrowed KRW 3 million from the Plaintiff on August 4, 2010.
In addition to the above KRW 50 million, Defendant B’s loans from the Plaintiff amounting to KRW 53 million (hereinafter “the loan of this case”). / [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Party A’s entries in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. The parties' assertion
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The loan of this case is not a loan made by Defendant B with the money borrowed from Defendant B as necessary to purchase the land of 812m2 and E forest land of 333m2 in Cheongju-si, Cheongju-si, and as gambling funds. 2) The Plaintiff did not receive the instant loan from Defendant B.
B. The Defendants’ assertion 1) The loan of this case was knowingly lent to Defendant B to the effect that it was used for gambling funds, and thus constitutes illegal consideration, the Plaintiff cannot seek a return thereof against the Defendants. (2) Defendant B paid to the Plaintiff KRW 32.5 million around February 201, KRW 30 million around June 201, KRW 30 million in total, and KRW 62.5 million in total, and repaid the loan of this case to the Plaintiff.
3. Determination
A. In order to establish a “illegal act” as referred to in Article 746 of the Civil Act with respect to whether the instant borrowed money constitutes illegal consideration, the act that caused the payment of benefits constitutes not only a violation of good customs and other social order, in light of the content, character, purpose, or flexibility, but also a case where: (a) the act is deemed to be in violation of good customs and other social order; (b) the anti-social, anti-social, ethical, and anti-competence; or (c) the act was performed in violation of the mandatory law; and (d) the return of the borrowed money does not coincide with the normative purpose (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Do18