대여금
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: “In accordance with the same agreement as the above,” under Article 57(1) of the Commercial Act, the second part of the judgment of the court of first instance added “as joint and several with D pursuant to Article 57(1) of the Commercial Act; and the third part, subsequent to the third part, Article 8 of the Commercial Act is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance
2. The defendant asserts that the agreement in this case constitutes a guarantee agreement on investment principal, and thus null and void in violation of Article 55 of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, which is a mandatory provision. However, as to the agreement in this case concluded with the defendant, who is not a financial investment business entity, Article 55 of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, which provides for the prohibition of compensating for losses between a financial investment business entity and an investor, is not applicable, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit without further review. (2) Next, the defendant is not only a victim himself as a victim, but also a victim, and it is merely a document of the loan in this case (written evidence No. 1) with the plaintiff's intent to keep it only for the stabilization of stability in the payment of money in accordance with the principle of good faith or equity.
However, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff was prepared and delivered the instant loan certificate by the Defendant and D, the primary investor, in preparation for the case where the Plaintiff could not recover the investment amount from C, and was unable to actually recover the investment amount, and the Defendant requested the instant claim against the Defendant based on the above loan certificate. As such, considering the circumstances asserted by the Defendant, it is difficult to view the instant claim as being considerably contrary to the concept of justice and thus, it constitutes a case where the liability should be limited in accordance with the good faith and equity doctrine
This part of the defendant's argument is without merit.