207 Ghana 5059 Loans

00

100

October 31, 2007

November 21, 2007

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The defendant of the Gu office shall pay to the plaintiff 25,00,000 won with the interest of 5% per annum from August 2, 2006 to the service date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

The following facts may be acknowledged by taking into account the following facts: Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 4, Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 5, and witness testimony Nos. 000.

A. A worked as an employee of the real estate brokerage office for the development of real estate consulting and real estate, and received money from the lender and subsequently lent the money to the borrower.

B. A requested the Defendant to borrow money on behalf of the Plaintiff, who is the lender working for the same office on May 2, 2006, and entered into a monetary loan agreement with the Defendant on August 2, 2006 (hereinafter “the monetary loan agreement of this case”). Around May 2, 2006, the Defendant entered into a mortgage agreement with respect to the land and the ground building owned by Nonparty 00, the father of the Defendant, on the same day as the security of the obligation under the monetary loan agreement of this case, with respect to the money loan agreement of this case (hereinafter “the monetary loan agreement of this case”). Around May 2, 2006, a mortgage agreement of this case was concluded with the Defendant as to the maximum debt amount of 32.5 million won, the obligor, the Defendant, and the Plaintiff.

B. Meanwhile, the Defendant did not directly contact with the Plaintiff at the time of entering into the instant monetary loan agreement and the said mortgage agreement, and the instant loan received 000 money from the Plaintiff from the Plaintiff to the passbook of Nonparty 000, and remitted 20 million won remaining after deducting 5 million won in advance interest and expenses.

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the loan of this case 25 million won and its delay damages, except in extenuating circumstances.

B. As to this, the Defendant asserts that, as the Plaintiff’s agent, the Plaintiff paid 20 million won out of the instant loan and deposited the remainder of the loan principal and interest, the Defendant extinguished the obligation under the instant monetary loan agreement.

Therefore, if we gather the purport of Gap's testimony, Gap's evidence Nos. 2, 4, Eul's evidence Nos. 3 and 4 and the above 000, the plaintiff met with Gap's money play through himself and received documents for establishing a right to collateral security on the above real estate from Gap, and then remitted money to Eul's passbook for 000. The defendant's signature and seal to the above contract for establishing a right to collateral security was public interest and there was no statement on the creditor's loan of this case. The defendant requested a grace period of 2,000 won until the end of August 31, 2006 and received a grace period of 2,000 won to Gap, and the defendant and the other defendant asserted that 1,500,000 won were repaid for 1,000 won and 50,000 won were actually repaid to the defendant and 1,000 won were repaid for 2,000 won and 50,000 won were actually repaid to the defendant.

In a case where a wrong bond broker requests a lender to borrow money from a person who intends to obtain a loan, the secured documents shall be accepted if the collateral is reliable, and if the person who intends to obtain the loan wants to pay the money, the lender shall obtain the collateral in advance and lend the money to the lender. In this case, the lender shall be aware of the other party, and in a case where the loan broker conducts a loan brokerage business on behalf of both parties who would obtain the loan without knowing who is the other party, and trust in the loan broker, the bond broker shall act as the agent of the lender when concluding the loan for consumption, and as long as the principal and interest of the loan was granted by the lender, the agent who received the right of representation to execute the loan for consumption from the lender shall be deemed to have been authorized to receive the loan from the lender as stipulated in the loan contract for consumption, and as long as the principal and interest of the loan broker Gap did not reach the loan contract for consumption, the principal and interest of the loan broker Gap shall be deemed to have been repaid by the borrower as well as the principal and interest of the loan broker Gap, as stated in the loan contract for consumption.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Hwang Young-soo