The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion on the revocation of a loan contract by fraud, which is the other party under Article 110(1) of the Civil Act, on the ground that it cannot be recognized that D, a person in charge of the Plaintiff’s loan, conspired with C, a third party, could not be recognized that the loan was made in excess

The judgment below

In light of the records, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or incomplete hearing as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

Furthermore, we cannot accept the argument in the grounds of appeal that D, a person in charge of the Plaintiff’s lending, could not be viewed as a third party under Article 110(2) of the Civil Act on the ground that D may make it identical to the Plaintiff, as long as D cannot be acknowledged the fact of deceiving the Defendant as above, and thus, it cannot be accepted.

In addition, examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the relevant legal principles, the judgment of the court below that did not limit the defendant's obligation to return the principal and interest of loan is just, and there is no violation of law such

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.