손해배상(기)
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. Basic facts
A. On May 19, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking the payment of loans of KRW 25,742,465 and damages for delay of KRW 20,000 among them.
(G) The Gimpo City Court 2014 Ghana1145, hereinafter referred to as the “instant loan”). (B)
On July 6, 2014, the Defendant received a notice of performance recommendation decision from the above court, but did not raise an objection within the objection period, and thus the said performance recommendation decision became final and conclusive.
C. After that, the Plaintiff agreed to pay KRW 24,00,000 among the instant loans to the Defendant’s ASEAN for one year each month and to exempt the remainder of interest.
C In accordance with the above agreement, from August 29, 2014 to July 31, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 24,000,000 per month to the Plaintiff.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap Nos. 1, 2, 4, Eul Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Defendant, although he was able to repay the instant loan, had the Plaintiff induce the Plaintiff to enter into an agreement on the installment payment of the instant loan, and submitted a false list of property.
The Plaintiff incurred damages equivalent to KRW 7,905,815, excluding the money paid pursuant to the installment payment agreement of this case among the loans of this case, as well as the total amount of KRW 6,222,367 and delay damages.
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay damages to the plaintiff KRW 7,905,815.
B. The fact that the Plaintiff entered into the instant installment payment agreement with the Defendant’s ASEAN is as seen earlier, and according to the purport of the evidence Nos. 3 and 6, and evidence Nos. 7-12 and the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff filed an application against the Defendant to specify the property (Seoul District Court Seosan Branch 2015Kao1297). In the instant case, only the Defendant was a property with the Defendant’s property on April 18, 2016.