beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On December 30, 2005, ES Savings Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “ES Savings Bank”) drafted a credit transaction agreement with the Defendant to grant a loan of KRW 5.4 billion to the Defendant on December 30, 2006, with the agreed interest rate of KRW 12% per annum and KRW 25% per annum of the agreed interest rate of damages for delay (hereinafter “instant loan”).
B. On September 26, 2012, this Court sentenced the bankruptcy of the Es Savings Bank as No. 2012Hahap9, and decided to appoint the Plaintiff as the trustee in bankruptcy of the Es Savings Bank.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 4 and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Issues and judgments
A. The parties’ assertion and key issues (1) The Defendant’s loan contract of this case is null and void as a conspiracy with a false representation (Article 108(1) of the Civil Act) in order to avoid the provision on the lending limit to the same person under the Mutual Savings Banks Act, and is also null and void as an unfair juristic act (Article
In addition, the loans of this case were extinguished by the completion of commercial prescription.
The remaining principal is KRW 2.7 billion after partial exemption from the loan claim of this case.
(2) The Plaintiff’s assertion (A) even if the loan contract of this case aims to avoid the regulation on lending limit to the same person under the Mutual Savings Banks Act, it is nothing more than the intent to vest the economic effect of the loan contract of this case between the Es Savings Bank and the Defendant in another third party and it is not concluded with the intent to exclude the legal effect of the Defendant. Thus, the loan contract of this case does not constitute the false declaration of conspiracy
Even if the loan contract of this case is a false conspiracy mark, the plaintiff constitutes a bona fide third party in the false conspiracy mark, so the defendant cannot oppose the plaintiff.
(B) The Defendant’s father explained the instant loan to the Defendant, and the Defendant’s voluntary intention is the instant case.