beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. The reasoning for this court’s explanation is as follows, except where the two pages 2, 19, and 9 of the judgment of the court of first instance are used as follows, and therefore, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
【The part of the loan contract in this case is concluded with the Plaintiff, on January 11, 2012, the Defendant concluded the loan contract in this case with the Plaintiff, stating that, although the vehicle value is only 12 million won of the vehicle and there was no intention to pay the profit even if the vehicle was invested in the vehicle, the Defendant would make an investment in the rental car business by obtaining a loan of KRW 29.5 million from the Plaintiff and purchasing the NAS vehicle, the Plaintiff would pay all kinds of interest and public charges every month, transfer the vehicle name within 3 months, and pay 60,000 won every month with the proceeds.” The Plaintiff, along with the Plaintiff, knew or could have known the fact that the loan contract in this case was concluded with the Plaintiff with the Plaintiff, and therefore, as the Plaintiff cancelled the loan contract in this case between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff for this reason, the Plaintiff claimed that there was no claim for compensation under the loan contract in this case.
However, according to the purport of the entry in the evidence No. 11 and the entire pleadings, it is recognized that C had induced B as above and entered into the instant loan contract with B to be financed by the vehicle. However, the Plaintiff conspired with C for deception.
Since it is insufficient to recognize the fact that B knew or could have known that B would enter into the instant loan agreement with the Plaintiff by deceiving B from C, each statement in the certificate Nos. 11 and 15 is insufficient to recognize it, the Defendant’s assertion is groundless since B cannot cancel the instant loan agreement on the ground of C’s deception against a third party who is not related to C, and thus, the Defendant’s assertion is not reasonable.
2...