beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff’s ground of appeal Nos. 1-1 (Agreement on Loan Transactions) against the Defendant on May 4, 2010, No. 1-2, and No. 2 of the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal on May 14, 2010.
Reasons
1. The parties' assertion
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff: (a) the husband C, who worked for the Defendant Union as a person in charge of the loan, has the Plaintiff’s seal, identification card, etc. and used the Plaintiff’s name; and (b) a loan contract with the loan principal of KRW 113,00,000 on May 4, 2010; and (c) a loan contract with the loan principal of KRW 4,000,000 on December 1, 2010 (hereinafter the above two loan contracts collectively referred to as “each of the instant loan contracts”); and (d) accordingly, the Plaintiff sought confirmation of the absence of the obligation under each of the instant loan contracts against the Defendant.
B. The defendant's assertion that the plaintiff comprehensively delegated the right to loan to C, the husband, so each of the loan contracts in this case was lawfully concluded, and even if not delegated, C, which was substituted by the plaintiff's economic activities, concluded each of the loan contracts in this case to acquire real estate due to the plaintiff's activities to increase the property of the husband and wife, so each of the loan contracts in this case is deemed a juristic act included in the scope of the husband's ordinary right of representation, and even if it exceeded the scope of the opinion, the expression agent is formed. Since the plaintiff implicitly approved each of the loan contracts in this case after the conclusion of each of the loan contracts in this case, the plaintiff is obligated to repay the loan obligations
2. Determination
A. In a lawsuit seeking confirmation of non-existence of a pecuniary obligation, if the plaintiff, who is the debtor, claims first, denies the fact that the cause of the financial obligation occurred by specifying the claim first, the defendant, the creditor, bears the burden of proving the fact that the legal relationship exists (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da17821, Jul. 26, 2002). In this case, the plaintiff alleged that the cause of the financial obligation under the loan contract of this case is denied, and the defendant, the creditor, bears the burden of proving the facts that the financial obligation
B. The plaintiff's intent is based on the plaintiff's intent.