beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. The following facts of recognition may be found either in dispute between the parties or in accordance with Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, and 6 (including the number with which each number is attached; hereinafter the same shall apply) and in the testimony of the witness C of the first instance trial by taking into account the whole purport of the pleadings:
On August 2007, the Defendant requested C to lend KRW 30,000,000 to the early police officer, and C requested C to lend to the Plaintiff instead of the Plaintiff, which was one’s own fraud, where the financial situation was not good at the time. The Plaintiff consented.
B. Accordingly, on August 2007, the Defendant issued a promissory note (hereinafter “instant promissory note”) at the face value of 30,000,000 won to the Plaintiff, the payee, the issue date of the Plaintiff, August 13, 2007, and the due date of August 17, 2007, to the Plaintiff.
C. The Defendant stated on the back side of the Promissory Notes in the purport that it is intended to deposit the Promissory Notes into D’s account (F). The Plaintiff transferred KRW 30,000,000 to D’s account on August 10, 207, 200.
2. The parties' assertion
A. The Plaintiff received the Promissory Notes from the Defendant upon the Defendant’s request by the head of the Plaintiff, and leased KRW 30,000,000 to the Defendant on August 17, 2007.
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff a loan of KRW 30,000,000 and damages for delay.
B. The defendant asserts that there is no obligation to pay the loan to the plaintiff for the following reasons.
1) The Defendant did not borrow KRW 30,000,000 from the Plaintiff, but only issued the Promissory Notes to the effect that, upon the request of C in borrowing from C, E guarantees G’s obligations. Therefore, the creditors of the instant Promissory Notes are not the Plaintiff, and the obligor is not the Defendant. (2) Home Affairs, even if the Defendant is the debtor of the instant Promissory Notes, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 30,000,000 into the account in the name of D through C, not the Defendant, but the H.