대여금
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
I. Of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance which cited the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part excluding, “A’s debt guarantee against the Plaintiff or at least C’s debt guarantee against the Plaintiff with respect to the loan borrowed from the Plaintiff,” and the part excluding, “A’s debt guarantee against the Plaintiff or C’s debt guarantee against the Plaintiff” as stated in the judgment of first instance, is reasonable. As such, this is cited on the ground of this judgment pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, and the following is added by the judgment of the Defendant as to the main argument that the appellate court repeats or adds.
Ⅱ Judgment on the Defendant’s additional assertion
1. The Defendant asserts that the borrower is not the Defendant, but the Defendant borrowed money from “C” and the Plaintiff also remitted money to the Defendant with the knowledge of this fact. Thus, the borrower asserts to the effect that it is “C” rather than the Defendant.
However, in a loan for consumption that borrows money, in principle, the borrower should be determined by the parties at the time of borrowing the money in principle.
According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited as the above, the following circumstances may be additionally acknowledged in addition to the circumstances acknowledged as the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance.
In other words, at the time of remitting the first loan to the Defendant, the Plaintiff was unaware of not only the credit standing of “C” but also the “C” itself.
The circumstance that the Plaintiff transferred the instant loan to the Defendant is only an internal relationship between the Defendant and C, and the relationship with the Plaintiff did not have a legal meaning.
Even if “C” directly remitted money to the Plaintiff as alleged by the Defendant, and repaid the borrowed money, such circumstance alone cannot be viewed as “C” rather than the Defendant.
This is because it is alleged by the defendant.