대여금
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
3.The reduction of claims in the trial shall be made.
1. According to the evidence No. 1 of the judgment as to the cause of the claim, the defendant prepared a loan certificate to the plaintiff on June 2, 2004 to the effect that "the defendant borrowed 150 million won from the plaintiff under C's guarantee from the plaintiff on October 30, 2004 (hereinafter "the loan certificate of this case") with the interest rate of 2% per month, and with the due date of repayment as of October 30, 2004, respectively" (hereinafter "the loan certificate of this case"), and there is no counter-proof. Thus, it is reasonable to view that the defendant borrowed 150 million won from the plaintiff, barring any special circumstance. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the above 150 million won and damages for delay at the rate of 24% per annum per annum, which is the agreement between the plaintiff on January 3, 2006 to the date of full payment.
2. The defendant's assertion that the above 150 million won is C, and the defendant is merely a person who actually uses the above 150 million won, and the defendant has signed or stamped the loan certificate of this case with the debtor without the plaintiff's intent to bear the obligation. Thus, although Eul used the above 150 million won as the debtor on the loan certificate of this case, it is argued that the defendant borrowed the above money from the plaintiff as long as he signed or sealed the loan certificate of this case, and as long as the defendant used the above 150 million won as the debtor, it shall be deemed that the defendant borrowed the above money from the plaintiff. On the other hand, as to whether the defendant signed or sealed the loan certificate of this case without the plaintiff's intent to bear the obligation, it is difficult to believe that some of the above 50 million won as the loan certificate of this case as the debtor and there
(On the other hand, the defendant asserts that C shall deduct the interest paid for about one year to the plaintiff. However, according to the defendant's argument, the plaintiff did not claim the interest for the period of one year and seven months after the lease date, so this part of the claim is reduced, so this part of the claim is not judged separately. 3. The plaintiff's claim is justified.