대여금
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. In full view of the entries in Gap evidence No. 1 as to the cause of the claim and the whole purport of the pleadings by the appraiser C at the trial, the defendant prepared and delivered to the plaintiff on January 8, 2003 a loan certificate stating that D borrowed KRW 12 million as a joint guarantor with D as to January 8, 2003, and the interest rate of the above loan certificate (2% per month) and the due date (2% per month November 29, 2003) were blank at the time, but the fact that the above loan certificate was completed by someone else can be acknowledged.
Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the 12 million won and the damages for delay, unless there are special circumstances, even though the above part written is the difference in the part.
2. Judgment on the defendant's defense
A. As to this, the Defendant agreed to borrow 12 million won from the Plaintiff at the time of gambling and pay 20 million won to the Plaintiff for 60 days each, including interest of 10 million won, and 200,000 won for 60 days thereafter. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant paid the above money by 20,000 won for 60 days thereafter.
This part of the defendant's argument is without merit.
B. Next, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff’s above loan claim constitutes illegal consideration and thus, the Plaintiff cannot seek reimbursement.
In full view of the evidence employed earlier and the purport of the entire pleadings in the testimony of the witness witness D, the defendant and D et al. were bling for gambling in Jeju from 2002 to 2003. At the time, the plaintiff was making a loan of gambling money at the place of gambling at the place of gambling. On January 8, 2003, the plaintiff lent 10 million won to the defendant via D's introduction and received the certificate of KRW 12 million including interest of KRW 2 million from the defendant as joint and several sureties with D introduced by the plaintiff as above. Thus, the plaintiff's loan claims against the defendant against the defendant constitute illegal consideration and thus, the plaintiff sought reimbursement in accordance with the main sentence of Article 746 of the Civil Act.