beta
Text
1. On May 28, 2019, with respect to the Plaintiff’s Defendant, the principal amounting to KRW 15,000,000 based on the loan agreement prior to the consumption of funds and interest thereon.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On May 3, 2019, the Seoul Family Court’s 2018 Down 4970 case, limited the following to the following: (a) the judgment was finalized on May 3, 2019: (b) the appointment of the Plaintiff as the Plaintiff’s limited guardian; and (c) the appointment of the limited guardian was completed as the Seoul Family Court’s receipt No. 400 on the same day.
B. On May 28, 2019, the Plaintiff entered into a credit loan agreement with the Defendant with an agreement of KRW 15,00,000,000, 19.9% of the autonomy, and 12 months of the loan period (hereinafter “instant agreement”). On May 29, 2019, the Plaintiff received KRW 15,000,000 from the Defendant to the E bank account in the name of the Plaintiff.
(c)
According to the check and registration after the restriction of this case, the contract of this case is a legal act that requires the consent of a limited guardian as an act for the preceding use of gold.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is to revoke the contract of this case without the consent of the limited guardian, which requires the consent of the limited guardian.
In addition, since all of the loans that the Plaintiff received under the contract of this case were put up for gambling and its interest does not exist, there is no obligation under the contract of this case against the Defendant.
B. Legal principles and determination 1) If a person’s guardian who has avoided a legal act that requires the consent of a limited guardian of the law without the consent of a limited guardian, the legal act may be cancelled (Article 13(4) of the Civil Act). Any cancelled legal act shall be deemed null and void from the beginning.
However, it is reasonable to view that the limited capacity is determined on the basis of the time when the claim for return of unjust benefits is cancelled, and the scope of return is also determined.