beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.03.16 2015나23986

채무부존재확인

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On April 17, 2009, the Plaintiff drafted a loan transaction agreement (hereinafter “instant loan agreement”) under which the Defendant borrowed KRW 100,000,000 with a loan period of one year and at the rate of interest fluctuation.

B. On April 17, 2009, the Defendant deposited KRW 99,930,00 in the deposit account (D) in the Plaintiff’s name.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence No. 7, Evidence No. 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment as to the plaintiff

A. The purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion is as follows: at the time of the conclusion of the instant loan agreement, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed not to assign legal effect under the instant loan agreement to the Plaintiff, who is the Plaintiff, and not to impose the obligation on the Plaintiff; thus, the instant loan agreement constitutes a false conspiracy, and thus null and void as it constitutes a false conspiracy, and the instant loan agreement does not exist.

(1) On December 15, 2008, the Plaintiff hospitalized the instant loan agreement with the Defendant since it was long after discharge on March 20, 2009, a third party, other than the Plaintiff, negotiated the instant loan agreement with the Defendant in advance, and the Defendant extended a loan without considering the Plaintiff’s benefits or financial ability.

(2) The loan transaction agreement was prepared at the office of E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”), where C substantially represents, and E newly opens a retirement pension of KRW 600,000,000, and provided consideration under the instant loan agreement to the Defendant. Since the withdrawal of E at the end of 2011, the Plaintiff extended the period of loan regardless of the Plaintiff’s intent. The Defendant urged C to pay the repayment, but requested C to extend the period of loan instead of demanding the Plaintiff to pay the repayment.

(b) to avoid the application of judgment statutes or the internal regulations of financial institutions.