손해배상(기)
1. The judgment of the court of first instance shall be modified according to the Plaintiff’s change of claims (additional grounds for claims) in the trial as follows:
1. Basic facts
A. On March 21, 2006, the Plaintiff entered into a loan agreement with the Defendant to obtain a loan in six installments each of KRW 438.6 million (hereinafter “the first loan agreement”).
Under the first loan contract, the Defendant implemented a loan of KRW 365 million in total (hereinafter referred to as "first loan") five times in total, and on June 5, 2009, the Plaintiff did not implement a loan of KRW 73,100,000 on six occasions upon filing an application for the cancellation of the remainder of the loan.
B. On March 8, 2010 and April 23, 2010 and July 23, 2010, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement with the Defendant for a modified loan of KRW 365 million each on three occasions with a view to delaying the repayment of the first loan of KRW 365 million, and paid in sequence the immediately preceding loan as a loan under each modified agreement.
C. On October 26, 2011, the Defendant received a substitute payment of KRW 365,673,710 (i.e., the total amount of loans extended to the Plaintiff KRW 365,483,459) from 200,251, which was the contractor of the above apartment building that was sold by the Plaintiff (i.e., overdue interest of KRW 190,251).
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, 2, 3, 6 through 9 (including each number, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments
2. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The defendant asserts that ① although the balance of the plaintiff's loan to the defendant is only KRW 365,500,000,000 won, the plaintiff's Korea Federation of Banks "the inquiry sheet of loan/debt guarantee" (hereinafter "the inquiry sheet of loan/debt guarantee in this
The Plaintiff’s total amount of loans was registered as if the cause was 1,681,283,459. ② Notwithstanding that the Plaintiff received a loan from the Defendant on eight occasions, the Plaintiff executes a total of 14 times loan exceeding that of the Plaintiff’s name without the Plaintiff’s consent, as described in subparagraph 4.