건물명도 등
1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.
3. Judgment of the court of first instance 1.
1. Grounds for the court’s explanation concerning this case, which cited the judgment of the court of first instance, are the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance
2.(a)
(2) The following is added to the end of the judgment of the first instance, and the ground of appeal No. 2
B. A claim shall be deleted, and a "two million won" of the first instance judgment No. 4 of the first instance judgment shall be cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except where "three million won" is deemed "three million won."
2. As to the additional portion, the Defendants asserted to the purport that the agreement in this case was null and void in violation of Article 104 of the Civil Act, since the O used the state of the Defendant B in such a situation as not only was subject to criminal punishment, but also was unable to reach an agreement unless the agreement was reached with L due to the O’s false statement made by the Defendant B. Thus, the agreement in this case was null and void in violation of Article 104 of the Civil Act, and even if not, the agreement in this case is not so, the agreement in this case is to lend the amount of KRW 10 million fromO and waives the ownership of the real estate in this case if the Defendant B was unable to repay the loan by April 30, 2013. This constitutes a promise to return the substitute property agreed to transfer other property rights with respect to the return of the borrowed amount, and the value of the real estate at the time of commercial buildings and this case exceeds the amount of the above loan and the interest thereon, and thus, the agreement in this case is null and void in violation of Article 607 of the Civil Act.
First, the evidence submitted by the Defendants alone is insufficient to recognize that the agreement of this case has been reached with the absence of sufficient evidence, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Therefore, this part of the Defendants’ assertion is without merit.
Next, Article 607 and Article 608 of the Civil Code apply only where the borrower has made a promise to return the goods in respect of the borrowed goods that are to be returned by the loan contract or quasi loan contract for consumption.