손해배상(기)
1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.
Purport of claim and appeal
1.
The grounds for appeal by the Defendants cited in the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance can be recognized as legitimate even if the Defendants added the evidence additionally submitted in this
Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows: “Defendant D” at the second bottom of the judgment of the court of first instance to “Co-Defendant D of the court of first instance”; “Defendant D” to “D”; and “Defendant D” to “D”; the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment, except for adding the following judgments as to the grounds for appeal by the Defendants. Therefore, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the
As to the assertion that the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant Company for additional determination on the grounds of appeal is an investment bond, the Defendants asserted that the amount the Plaintiff paid to the Defendant Company is not a loan, but an investment bond, and the instant loan certificate and written confirmation made to the effect that the said money is a loan, are invalid as they were made by a false agreement or a false declaration of intention.
However, while the loan certificate and the confirmation document of this case, the authenticity of which is recognized, stipulate that the money that the plaintiff paid to the defendant company is a loan, there is no documentary evidence or objective material to regard the said money as investment.
The Defendants submitted only a number of statements prepared by H, etc. on their grounds of their assertion, but each of the above statements is merely a statement or indirect circumstance that people who have the same interest with the Defendants stated in Defendant C only, and thus, it cannot be said that there is no clear and acceptable counter-proof to deny the probative value of the instant loan certificate and written confirmation.
Therefore, this part of the defendants' assertion cannot be accepted.
The defendant company's act of assuming obligations is null and void because the board of directors' resolution is not required.