beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to pay below shall be revoked.
2...
Reasons
1. The reasoning of this part of the judgment of the court concerning the plaintiff's cause of action is as follows: "175,00,000 won" in Section 7 of Section 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance added "6.1% per annum, 6.1% per annum, and 18% per annum (applicable to the fluctuation rate and the fluctuation rate in accordance with the Basic Terms and Conditions for Credit Transactions) of the payment period," and "the delay rate" in Section 10 as "the delay rate" and "the delay interest and the delay rate" in Section 11 are the same as the part of Section 1. of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the deletion of "the delay interest and the delay rate" in Section 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. (1) As to the assertion that a false conspiracy exists, the Defendant’s assertion is that the Defendant is the actual obligor B of the loan agreement of this case, and the Defendant is merely the lending of the name of the loan, and there is an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant that the Defendant does not bear the obligation under the loan agreement of this case, and thus the loan agreement of this case
(2) In order to establish a false declaration of agreement on the relevant legal principles, there must be an agreement between the other party and the other party as to the disagreement. If a third party directly signed and sealed as a principal debtor in loan-related documents, such as a letter of loan for consumption agreement, etc., the third party expressed that he/she is the debtor of the loan for consumption contract, and the third party intended to have another person obtain a loan under the name of the third party and use it.
Even if the principal and interest are to be repaid at the expense of another person, barring special circumstances, barring special circumstances, this is merely an intention to vest economic effects under a loan for consumption in another person, and the legal effect cannot be deemed to be an intention to vest in another person. Therefore, it is difficult to deem that there is a disagreement between the truth and indication of a third party
in this respect, specific.