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. The Plaintiff introduced C in a transactional relationship while running the real estate brokerage business, and loaned C with the interest rate of KRW 24 million per annum on December 20, 2013 (hereinafter “instant loan”). The Plaintiff leased C with the maturity of KRW 10 million on February 22, 2013, and the same year.
6. 18.18.10 million won was remitted to the defendant's account, and the defendant has the same year.
2. 2. 10 million won, per year;
6. 19.10 million won was remitted to the account of D, his father-child.
B. The Plaintiff received interest transfer from August 22, 2013 from the date of lending the said loan in the passbook in the name of C, D, etc.
【In the absence of dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 2 (including each number, hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion and judgment
A. The plaintiff's assertion was actively recommended by the defendant to believe that the defendant has sufficient financial resources of C, and thus, the defendant trusted this amount of KRW 20 million and lent it to C to the defendant, and the defendant is responsible for the case where the problem arises. At least, the defendant bears the responsibility as a joint and several surety for the return of the loan to the plaintiff to C.
B. The Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff entered into a loan agreement with C, and thus, the Defendant did not bear the obligation to return the loan to the Plaintiff, and the Defendant merely introduced C to the Plaintiff, which is merely a joint and several surety.
C. In full view of the overall purport of the statements and arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 3, 6, 7 and Eul evidence Nos. 4, the following facts are revealed: (i) while the plaintiff remitted KRW 20 million to the defendant and the defendant immediately remitted it to Eul, the plaintiff and Eul did not have any kind of relationship; and (ii) the defendant received a loan certificate for KRW 10 million in the name of C without any indication as to the creditor, and (iii) during which the defendant received it.