beta
Text
1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.
Purport of claim and appeal
1.
Reasons
1. The court's explanation concerning this case is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Since the Defendants’ legal representative of the first instance court submitted a petition of appeal on May 2, 2017, the Defendants were on May 30, 2017, and the same year.
7.26.Woo, 26.Woo
8. 30.Woo, 30.Woo
9. On October 18, 2017, the pleadings were concluded on October 18, 2017 due to the failure to submit a statement of grounds for appeal, despite an order to prepare for questioning again issued on December 26.
The legal representative of the Defendants at the trial submitted an application for reference documents and the resumption of argument on October 30, 2017. ① The declaration of intent of this case constitutes a defective declaration of intent, such as Defendant D's deception and mistake, and thus, it is necessary to examine AD in order to clarify the facts. ② If AD obtained only Defendant D's consent with regard to the utilization of the instant security, tort is still established against the other Defendants, which are the primary debtor and joint guarantor. As such, the damage claim and the instant loan claim are set off. ③ On the other hand, the Defendants, who raised funds to increase capital by using the instant collateral, suffered damage therefrom, are obligated to return unjust enrichment to the Defendants, and they asserted that A set off the claim for return of unjust enrichment and the instant loan claim.
① However, AD had been present as a witness of a related case (Seoul High Court 2013Na2024236), and testified in detail as to the process of preparing the written consent of each of the instant security provision. There is no reason to deem that there is no need to conduct any further examination as the written consent of AD, etc. was submitted as evidence (Evidence A7, 8, and 9) to the first instance court, and ② so long as the secured party sold the security with the consent of the secured party, the said sale is for the principal debtor and the joint guarantor.