Plaintiff 1 and one other (Law Firm Daeho, Attorneys Park Sang-hoon et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

punched Loan Co., Ltd.

June 18, 2020

Gwangju District Court Decision 2018Gahap54281 Decided June 27, 2019

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. On October 18, 2016, between the plaintiffs and ○○○○○○○, the plaintiffs’ obligations against the defendant under the monetary loan agreement were not nonexistent.

3. All costs of the lawsuit are borne by the Defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Indication of claim;

A. The Plaintiffs are married couple, and Plaintiff 1 is the representative director of △△△ Group Co., Ltd., a manufacturing company, such as Mascact, and Plaintiff 2 is the major shareholder of △△△△△△ (hereinafter “△△△△△”), a distribution company, such as Mascact, etc.

B. Around 2016, between the Nonparty and the actual operator of ○○○○○○○○○ (hereinafter “○○○○○○○○○”) entered 30% of the outstanding shares of ○○○○○○○○○ in △△○○○○○ by acquiring 1 billion won from Plaintiff 2, and the Nonparty agreed to take office as the management representative of △△△○○○○○○○○, and to perform his duties. At the time, the Nonparty requires evidentiary documents related to the above 1 billion investment of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, and there is a problem in the payment of fees for the name of the investment consulting. Accordingly, Plaintiff 1 made a written agreement on a loan for consumption that borrowed KRW 1 billion from ○○○○○○○○○○○○○ (hereinafter “○○○○○○”) as an investment consulting fee. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs borrowed money from Plaintiff 1 to 200 million on October 18, 2016.

C. On October 16, 2016, the ○○○○○○○ paid KRW 1 billion to Plaintiff 1,00,000,000,000 won in total, including KRW 20,010,000,000,000,000 to KRW 1,000,000 on October 14, 2016, and KRW 300,000 on November 3, 2016. Plaintiff 1 remitted KRW 2,01,00 (6,70,000 x 3 months) equivalent to the interest on KRW 30,00,00 to the Nonparty’s issued stocks, and Plaintiff 2 transferred KRW 1,382,40,00 to Nonparty 2, respectively, from October 1, 2016 to October 17, 2017. The Nonparty transferred the Nonparty’s business to Nonparty 2, a management representative of △△△△△.

D. However, on November 7, 2017, ○○○○○○ filed a lawsuit for the confirmation of the existence of an obligation (Seoul District Court 2017Gahap59562) against ○○○○○○○ on the ground of the instant loan agreement, on November 23, 2017, on the ground that there was no obligation of the Plaintiffs under the instant loan agreement, and the Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit for the confirmation of the existence of an obligation against ○○○○○○○○○○○ on the ground that the said lawsuit for the confirmation of existence of an obligation was pending, on March 12, 2018, on which the said lawsuit for the confirmation of existence of an obligation was pending, on the ground of the instant loan for consumption. On April 2, 2018, the ○○○○○○ transferred the loan credit to the Defendant and notified the Plaintiff 1

E. In light of the above circumstances, the plaintiffs' obligations against the defendant pursuant to the loan agreement of this case do not exist. Since the defendant contests this, there is a benefit to seek confirmation of non-existence of the contract of this case.

2. Grounds for recognition;

Judgment by public notice (Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act)

3. Conclusion

The claim of the plaintiffs in this case shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning. However, since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair on the grounds of its different conclusion, the court below accepted the appeal of the plaintiffs and accepted the claim of the plaintiffs, it is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Kim Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)