beta
(영문) 광주지방법원 2019.05.10 2018가단505270

대여금

Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 55,325,868 and KRW 50,000 among the costs, from January 16, 2018 to the day of full payment.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On July 16, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a loan transaction agreement with the Defendant by setting the lending amount of KRW 50,000,000, the repayment date on July 16, 2018; the interest rate of KRW 5.895 per annum; and damages for delay at KRW 50,00,000 on the account in the name of the Defendant (CUnionD) on the same day.

B. The Defendant did not pay the principal and interest of the loan, thereby losing the benefit of August 8, 2017. The remaining principal and interest as of January 15, 2018 are KRW 55,325,868, and the principal and interest of the loan are KRW 50,00,000 among them.

[Grounds for recognition] Class A, Nos. 1, 2, and 4 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the remaining principal and interest of KRW 55,325,868 as the obligor and the delay damages of KRW 18% per annum pursuant to the agreement from January 16, 2018 to the date of full payment.

B. The defendant's argument 1) The defendant is E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter, the non-party company).

Since the Plaintiff was aware of such circumstances, the loan agreement in this case argues that the agreement in this case is null and void as it constitutes a declaration of intention in collusion.

When a conspiracy is to be established with false indication of intention, there shall be an agreement between the other party and the other party as to the discrepancy between the truth and indication of declaration of intention.

If a third party directly signs and affixs a seal on loan-related documents, such as a written agreement of a loan for consumption, if he/she directly signs and affixs a seal on such loan-related documents as the principal debtor or joint guarantor, even though he/she expressed his/her intention to authorize the third party to repay the loan after using the loan, barring any special circumstance, it shall not be deemed as the intention to vest it in the legal effect under the loan for consumption to the third party, and thus, there is

In a specific case, the above special circumstance exists.