beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
purport.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for adding the following judgments as to the matters newly asserted or emphasized by the defendant in the trial, and thus, it is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance. Thus, this is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Additional matters to be determined
A. As to the assertion that there is no preserved claim, the Defendant asserts that the D Bank handled that the credit guarantee accident immediately occurred on November 10, 2018, the following day following the due date of the loan (on November 9, 2018), in which A did not pay the principal on the due date of the loan, and that it is improper to notify the Plaintiff of the credit guarantee accident due to the due date of the loan immediately following the due date in which A did not delay the interest of the loan. As such, it is unreasonable to notify the Plaintiff of the credit guarantee accident due to the due date following the due date of the loan due to the notification of the unfair credit guarantee accident of D Bank, the claim for indemnity that the Plaintiff acquired by subrogation
However, according to the purport of Gap evidence No. 2 and the whole arguments, it is acknowledged that Gap's maturity of a loan obligation to a DNA bank is November 9, 2018, and Gap did not pay the principal of the loan by the maturity date. According to the above facts, A shall be deemed to have caused a guarantee accident for the above loan obligation by failing to pay the principal of the loan by the maturity date, and there is no evidence to prove any illegality or error in the notification of a credit guarantee accident on the ground of the principal body.
Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.
B. The defendant's assertion that the sales contract of this case does not constitute a fraudulent act is limited to the amount of loan claims (505,776,000 won) that the defendant lent to A several times, compared to the amount of loan claims (505,00,000 won) that the defendant lent to A, and even after the conclusion of the sales contract of this case, A is subject to the conclusion of the sales contract of this case.