beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 246,516,883 as well as the Plaintiff’s KRW 5% per annum from July 13, 2016 to November 29, 2017.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On February 4, 2016, the Defendant filed an application for a direct lease loan with the Plaintiff (hereinafter the same) by submitting necessary documents, such as the lease contract, resident registration, certified copy and abstract of resident registration, certificate of personal seal impression, family relation certificate, and certificate of tax payment, stating that he/she leased the “Seoul Eunpyeong-gu B Apartment 619, 301,” from the owner C with the “Seoul-gu 619, 301,000,000 won of the deposit.”
B. On February 12, 2016, the Plaintiff believed that the said lease contract was genuine and carried out a loan of KRW 250 million to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant loan”) to transfer the loan to the Defendant’s account in the name of the Defendant.
C. However, in fact, the instant loan was a result of the Plaintiff’s recruitment of the name holder D et al. with the false lessee, such as the Defendant, and the Plaintiff’s employees E et al. conspired to prepare internal documents as if the application was made for normal loan, and to execute the loan by obtaining approval from the Plaintiff president.
The above lease contract was made falsely, and the defendant did not rent apartment houses as stated in the above lease contract, and even if the loan was received from the plaintiff, it was thought to pay it to the above E, etc. without the intention to use it as the lease deposit, and there was no intention or ability to pay the principal and interest of the loan.
E. On February 12, 2016, the Defendant received KRW 7 million from D in return for the name lending.
[Ground of recognition] The defendant, as described in each of Gap 1 (including a provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply) through 12, denies the authenticity of Gap 5 (a prior lease contract). However, the above evidence is not evidence as to the existence of a legal act as stated above, but evidence as to the existence of the document at the time when the defendant applied for a loan of money for a prior lease to the plaintiff.
The purport of the entire pleadings.