대여금
1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).
purport, purport, and.
1. The scope of the judgment of the court of first instance is dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on the principal lawsuit, and the judgment of the court of first instance which dismissed the Defendants’ counterclaim was rendered. As to the judgment of the court of first instance only the Plaintiff appealed on the principal lawsuit among the judgment of the court of first instance, only the Plaintiff’s principal lawsuit against the Defendants is subject
2. On May 10, 2006, a notary public of the basic facts was commissioned by the Plaintiff, a credit service provider registered as a credit service provider, and the Defendants represented by the Plaintiff, and prepared a notarial deed under a monetary loan agreement (No. 2343, 2006; hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) stating that “the Plaintiff shall have due date for payment of KRW 6.5 million to Defendant B on May 9, 2006; the interest shall be set at 60% per annum; and Defendant C shall be a joint and several surety.”
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1-1, 3, 4, and 5-1, and the purport of the whole pleadings
3. The parties' assertion
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Plaintiff lent money to Defendant B as stated in the instant notarial deed. Since Defendant C jointly and severally guaranteed this, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff KRW 6.5 million as stated in the instant notarial deed and damages for delay.
B. Summary of the Defendants’ assertion 1) The Plaintiff agreed to lend KRW 6.5 million to Defendant B, and the Defendants did not actually lend money to the Defendants, even though they concluded the instant Notarial Deed. 2) Even if there was a claim against the Defendants asserted by the Plaintiff, the period of extinctive prescription expired.
4. Determination
A. According to the evidence 1 of May 9, 2006 as to the cause of the claim, it is recognized that the power of attorney was prepared on May 9, 2006 to entrust D with the preparation of a notarial deed on “the Plaintiff, the debtor, the defendant C, the joint and several surety, the amount of debts of KRW 6.5 million, May 9, 2006, and June 8, 2006,” and the above D’s power was delegated.