대여금
1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.
Purport of claim and appeal
1.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: (a) the Plaintiff, on November 1, 201, used the term “payment period (as of December 31, 2013)” as “payment period (as of December 31, 2012)”; (b) Nos. 5-5 as “Plaintiff and G (E) as an intra-company director on November 1, 201,” respectively, as “the fact that the Plaintiff and G (E) were registered as F as an intra-company director on November 1, 201”; and (c) G (E) as an intra-company director, as of November 201.
2. Additional determination
A. On March 31, 2015, the Defendants: (a) sealed a blank promissory note in blank to the Defendants; (b) stated, “The Promissory note does not take effect without any authentication; and (c) signed and sealed the issuer column of the Promissory Notes (Evidence A) in trusting the horses of E and signing and sealing it on the issuer column of the Promissory Notes (Evidence A). Since this is by deception, the Defendants asserted that the issuance of the Promissory Notes was cancelled by delivery of the legal brief dated November 22, 2017. However, there is no evidence to prove that the Defendants signed and sealed the Promissory Notes in this case by means of deception.
B. Rather, comprehensively taking account of the purport of each statement in Gap evidence Nos. 6 through 10 (including each number), the defendants directly issued a certificate of personal seal impression, a certified copy or abstract of resident registration, attached a copy of his/her identification card, and signed and sealed the documents, such as money loan contract, mortgage contract, power of attorney, and promissory note of this case, in blank. On Oct. 15, 2012, the defendant B issued all the above documents for the purpose of securing the existing and future loans by borrowing additional money from the plaintiff on Oct. 15, 2012.