beta
(영문) 인천지방법원 2015.04.07 2014가단177

대여금

Text

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 34,760,537 and KRW 32,468,571 among them, from December 20, 2013 to the date of full payment.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On March 5, 2012, the Plaintiff received an application for a loan from the Defendant’s husband C through the Plaintiff’s husband C, who is an employee affiliated with the Plaintiff, and implemented a loan with the loan amount of KRW 54 million per annum, interest rate of KRW 19.9% per annum, overdue interest rate of KRW 29% per annum, and 36 months for the loan period.

(hereinafter “instant loan agreement”). (b)

The loan contract of this case occurred on December 19, 2013, and the reason for the loss of the benefit of time was 32,468,571 won for the remainder of the loan principal as of December 19, 2013, and 1,956,233 won for interest unpaid until the due date for loss of time, and 335,73 won for delay damages.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 and 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendant’s husband C delegated the Defendant’s husband C with the authority to conclude a loan contract and entered into a contract on behalf of the Defendant on that basis. As such, the Defendant is liable to pay the principal and interest under the instant loan contract as the obligor of the instant loan contract.

Even if C does not legally grant the right of representation from the Defendant and conclude the instant loan contract, the Defendant and C, as a married couple, believed that the instant loan contract constitutes a juristic act included in the scope of the right of representation, or that the Plaintiff and C have the right of representation to conclude the instant loan contract, and that there is justifiable reason to believe that it is reasonable. Therefore, the Defendant is liable for expressive representation.

Furthermore, even if C had concluded the instant loan contract on behalf of the Defendant without any authority, the Defendant ratified C’s act of unauthorized Representation.

B. The Defendant’s assertion did not conclude the instant loan agreement, and did not grant C the right of representation to conclude the instant loan agreement on behalf of himself.

C. First of all, C is the Plaintiff on behalf of the Defendant according to the delegation of the Defendant.