대여금
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
1. The reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance cited in this case is as follows, and the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance cited in the text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act is the same as the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the additional determination of the
2. Parts to be determined additionally
A. The defendant claiming alteration of the loan certificate shall pay the principal to the plaintiff in the middle part of the loan certificate (a) of this case (a). The plaintiff shall pay 10,000 won per day.
b. Interest is to state at will the phrase "... to pay 50,000 won per month," and it is alleged to the effect that the loan certificate of this case was modified by arbitrarily stating the phrase "joint and several" in front of the "sureties" at the bottom, but the evidence submitted by the defendant alone is insufficient to acknowledge such fact, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.
B. (i) The Defendant’s assertion that the act of anti-social order is alleged (i.e., the Plaintiff paid the instant loan to C with knowledge that C would use it as gambling funds. As such, a loan agreement on the said loan is in violation of good morals and other social order, and thus, is null and void under Article 103
An act of anti-social order invalidated under Article 103 of the Civil Code, which is the object of a juristic act, includes not only cases where the content of the obligation, which is the object of the juristic act, is contrary to good morals and other social order, but also cases where it has the nature of anti-social order by legally compelling it, or by carrying out a juristic act on a condition contrary to social order or monetary consideration, and where the motive of the juristic act indicated or known to the other party is anti-social order.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da12580, May 27, 2010). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, even if the instant case was examined, and all the evidence presented by the Defendant was collected, C.