대여금
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. On December 17, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a loan agreement with a loan agreement of KRW 30,00,000, interest and delay damages rate of KRW 34.894 per annum at the request of a loan applied in the name of the Defendant (hereinafter “instant loan agreement”) and deposit KRW 30,00,000 into the account of the Defendant bank in the name of the Defendant (hereinafter “instant loan agreement”) with a loan agreement of KRW 60 months at the request of the Defendant in the absence of face-to-face with the Defendant around December 17, 2015, and then deposits KRW 30,00,000 in the account of the Defendant’s bank account may be acknowledged by taking into account
2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment
A. The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff is a party to the instant loan contract, first of all, that the Plaintiff is a borrower who is the party to the instant loan contract, and thus, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff, the lender, the amount of KRW 3,012,893, the remaining principal and interest under the said loan contract, and the remaining principal and interest of KRW 29,982,853, the amount of delay damages calculated at the rate of 34.894% per annum from August 10, 2016 to the
However, evidence Nos. 1, 4, and 16, which correspond to the fact that the loan contract of this case was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant around December 17, 2015, cannot be admitted as evidence since there is no evidence to acknowledge the authenticity thereof. Rather, in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each of the statements Nos. 1 and 2, it can be recognized that, in light of the purport of the whole pleadings, C, who is the defendant's seat, applied for a loan by telephone as if he was the defendant, and did not have any column for writing from the plaintiff, by sending by facsimile the loan contract to the plaintiff, the Defendant's signature, etc. is written in the column for writing.
Therefore, the defendant cannot be seen as a party to the loan contract of this case, and the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.
B. Next, following the assertion by analogy of the doctrine of apparent representation by analogy, the Plaintiff, as C had cited the Defendant’s name and had followed it as the Defendant, had deceiving the Plaintiff as the Defendant, is also analogically applied to the Defendant.