beta
Text
1. All of the judgment of the first instance is revoked.
2. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.
3. All costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On December 29, 2014, the Plaintiff implemented a loan agreement on a loan made in the name of the Defendant through a transfer brokerage company, a motor vehicle driver’s license, and a motor vehicle registration certificate copy under the name of the Defendant (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) with a loan amount of KRW 4,70,000,000, interest rate of KRW 13.9%, and mid-to long-term debate loan made in the name of the Defendant for 24 months during the loan period (hereinafter “the first loan agreement”).
B. On April 5, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a loan agreement of TPP-UP loan agreement (hereinafter “each of the instant loan agreement”) with loans 18,691,341 won, interest rate 22.9%, and 48 months, at the request of a loan applied under the name of the Defendant without face-to-face with the Defendant. Accordingly, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 7,00,000,00, after deducting the repayment amount of the existing loan (hereinafter “the instant bank account”) from the bank account in the name of the Defendant (Account Number C; hereinafter “the instant bank account”).
[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 3, 4, 1, 2, 7, 8, Eul's evidence Nos. 2, 16, and 17, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) since the Plaintiff alleged in common in each of the instant loan contracts concluded each of the instant loan contracts with the Defendant, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the principal and interest of the loan under each of the instant loan contracts. 2) Even if the assertion regarding the instant loan contract was concluded by D as the Defendant’s argument, even if D entered into the instant first loan contract, the Defendant granted D the authority to allow D to use the name of the business operator of the home-type store and to act on behalf of the Plaintiff, and the instant loan contract is related to D’s home-type business. Thus, the instant loan contract is related to D’s home-type business.