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. Basic facts
A. On March 21, 2013, the Defendant prepared a loan transaction agreement with the Plaintiff and borrowed KRW 1,250,000,000 from the Plaintiff.
(hereinafter “instant loan agreement”). B.
The Defendant did not pay interest on the instant loan and lost the benefit of March 11, 2014. As of November 1, 2018, the balance of the instant loan as of November 1, 2018 is KRW 1,069,585,239 (= Principal KRW 377,72,183 for delay damages of contract amounting to KRW 691,863,056).
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 4 (including branch numbers for those with additional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum as stipulated in the main sentence of Article 3(1) of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings and the former Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings (amended by Presidential Decree No. 29768, May 21, 2019) with respect to KRW 1,069,5,239 and the principal amount of KRW 37,72,183 among them after the service date of the duplicate of the complaint of this case.
3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. 1) The summary of the Defendant’s assertion that the loan agreement in this case is null and void due to a false conspiracy is merely a juristic act that constitutes a false conspiracy, since the Defendant borrowed the name under the name of the loan agreement in this case upon request by D and C due to the lack of credit loans by D and C, and the actual obligor of the loan agreement in this case was not the Defendant, and the Plaintiff was well aware of such circumstances. Thus, the loan agreement in this case is merely a juristic act that constitutes a false conspiracy without the intent to bear the obligation according to the Plaintiff’s understanding, and thus, the judgment is merely a juristic act that constitutes a false conspiracy. 2) The intention and indication of the declaration of intent are to establish a false conspiracy.