대여금
1. All appeals filed by the Defendants (Counterclaim Plaintiff) are dismissed.
2. The defendant-Counterclaim plaintiff raised in the trial against the defendant-Counterclaim plaintiff.
1. Determination on the main claim
A. The reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows: (a) the part of the part of the judgment No. 4, No. 6, and No. 7 of the first instance court’s 6, and the part of the judgment No. 7, “However, I, upon the permission of the partnership company (hereinafter “non-party company”), provided that the loan of this case was paid to E under the name of the non-party company upon request from the non-party company; and (b) provided that “after receiving the above money again from E and then used it as construction machinery purchase fund and embezzled it at will without using it as the defendants’ construction machinery purchase fund,” and (c) except for the following additional determination as to the defendants’ assertion raised or emphasized in the trial, they are cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure
B. Article 1 of the individual agreement applied to the loan agreement of this case asserted by the Defendants is to entrust the company with a loan to the company regarding the funds for the purchase and operation of the automobile construction machinery to be paid to the seller of the automobile construction machinery (hereinafter “seller”), and the company directly pays the funds to the seller or related person on behalf of the principal.
Article 6 of the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act provides that "The above individual agreement constitutes a standardized contract." Based on the part "related person under the above individual agreement clause which does not specify who is certain, the plaintiff unilaterally determined the non-party company as the related person and paid the loan in this case and the loan contract was effective." The above individual agreement is a clause which is unreasonably unfavorable to the customer or difficult to expect in light of all circumstances, and is null and void pursuant to Article 6 of the Regulation
In light of the content of the contract between the plaintiff and the non-party company on consignment of business affairs, the non-party company is the plaintiff's agent, so the loan of this case paid to the non-party company is paid to the seller for its original