beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 32,440,848 and KRW 29,900 among them, 29% per annum from January 4, 2014 to the date of full payment.
Reasons
1. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim
A. The facts of recognition 1) B, despite that it was planned to repay its existing debts after obtaining a loan under the name of the Defendant on July 2013, 2013, B, the Defendant stated that “I would benefit from the number of million won per vehicle if sold after purchasing used cars. If only the name is leased so that a specialized credit financial business company can obtain a installment loan for used cars, I would return the profit within one month after purchasing the used cars, and would return the loan within one month, and the loan will be repaid within one month.” (ii) C had the Defendant, who was found at the end of the month, enter the name and resident registration number of the Defendant’s seal in advance, and after confirming whether the amount of the loan or the terms of the loan were in conformity with the loan, the Defendant stated “ordinary loan” column as “29,900,000, 15.9% per annum, 36 months per annum, 29% per annum interest rate per annum,” and stated “an amount of the loan in installments” column as “an amount of the principal and interest.”
(3) On July 16, 2013, the Plaintiff made a telephone call to the Defendant to verify whether the Defendant himself/herself complies with the loan amount and the terms and conditions, and thereafter lent KRW 29,90,000 under the name of the Defendant (hereinafter “instant loan”).
(3) Defendant and B lost the benefit of time due to their failure to perform their duty to repay in installments following the instant loan. The principal and interest of the instant loan are KRW 32,440,846 as of January 3, 2014.
[Reasons for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence, Gap evidence, Gap evidence 2, witness C's testimony, purport of whole pleadings]
B. Comprehensively taking account of the above facts acknowledged, it is reasonable to view that the loan application of this case was prepared according to the defendant's intent, and it cannot be denied the establishment of the petition solely on the grounds that the defendant's seal was affixed first.
Therefore, the defendant is therefore the case.