beta
Text
1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:
The defendant shall be joint with B.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Defendant entered into a false lease agreement with the co-defendant B (Defendant's living together) of the first instance trial on the lease deposit amount of KRW 350,000,00,000 between the lessor and the Defendant, B, and the lessee, with respect to the lease deposit amount of KRW 108,00,000,000 (hereinafter "the apartment of this case").
B. B, using the aforementioned false loan agreement prepared in collusion with the Defendant, on October 16, 2012, entered into a housing finance credit guarantee agreement between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, which stipulates the term of guarantee as of October 16, 2014, that the principal of guarantee was KRW 81 million, and the term of guarantee was stipulated, and issued a housing finance credit guarantee agreement from the Plaintiff. On the same day, 90 million won was loaned from the bank as collateral.
C. Since then, as the Plaintiff failed to repay the above loans to our bank, the Plaintiff subrogated 83,277,980 won in total, including principal and interest, to our bank on November 28, 2013 under the said Housing Finance Credit Guarantee Agreement.
On the other hand, the defendant and B prior to October 16, 2012.
As seen in this paragraph, in addition to receiving KRW 90,00 from our bank a full-time loan with money, it acquired KRW 195,525,00 from the above lease contract that was falsely prepared for the apartment of this case on the same day, and acquired KRW 195,525,00 as a full-time loan. As to the above defraudation, the Seoul Southern District Court was sentenced to a suspended sentence of imprisonment with prison labor by a judgment of 2014Kadan624 Decided May 20, 2014, and the above judgment was all dismissed and finalized as it is.
C - Defendant A, who was sold in lots around August 2012 at Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 108 Dong 303 around 2012, proposed that Defendant B, who had lived around that time, had the ability to pay the sales price, would be able to receive the loan of the next lease loan as if the above apartment was leased between the Defendants, and Defendant B also wanted to receive the above apartment loan.