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. Facts of recognition;
A. On December 26, 1994, the Plaintiff lent loans of KRW 10,00,00,00 to the Defendant, and the interest rate of KRW 25,197 on October 25, 1997, and KRW 12.5-13.5,00 on October 26, 199 (hereinafter “instant loan loan agreement”) to the Defendant. Codefendant B (the Defendant’s punishment; hereinafter “B”) of the first instance court jointly and severally guaranteed the Defendant’s loan obligations.
B. After the repayment date, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit with the Jeju District Court where the Defendant, C, and B did not repay the loan, and the Jeju District Court sentenced on October 5, 199 that “The Defendant, C, and B jointly and severally paid to the Plaintiff an amount equivalent to 22% per annum from June 29, 1999 to June 29, 199, for KRW 16,797,941 as well as KRW 10,000 among them.”
C. On December 28, 199, the Plaintiff received 12,000,000 won from C on December 28, 199 and appropriated the entire principal and damages for delay, but did not have been paid KRW 5,827,382.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence No. 3, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above recognition of the Plaintiff’s cause of claim, the Defendant is jointly and severally liable with B to pay KRW 5,827,382 to the Plaintiff delay damages.
3. Judgment on the defendant's defense
A. As to the defense that the loan contract of this case is null and void, the defendant alleged that the contract of this case was null and void since the actual debtor of the loan of this case was Eul, while the plaintiff was aware that he would use the loan as the gambling fund, the contract of this case was null and void. However, it is not sufficient to recognize that the plaintiff entered into the loan of this case with D with the knowledge that he would use the loan as the gambling fund, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, this part of the defendant's defense is without merit. 2) In addition, the defendant is formally the defendant under the plaintiff's understanding.