beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
purport, purport, and.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On April 14, 2017, Defendant B drafted a contract for leasing KRW 120,000,000 to Defendant D of the first instance trial building E (hereinafter “instant housing”). Defendant C, a licensed real estate agent, also drafted a contract as a broker of the said contract.
B. On April 27, 2017, Defendant D applied for a loan of KRW 84,000,000 under the Housing and Urban Fund for the household against the Plaintiff using the above contract, and the same year.
5.4. Defendant B submitted to the Plaintiff a certificate of the fact that Defendant B entered into a lease agreement with the same content as the above contract.
C. On May 10, 2017, Defendant B received a loan of KRW 84,000,000 from the Plaintiff, and immediately withdrawn KRW 40,000,000 over two occasions, respectively, and paid it in cash to Defendant D of the first instance trial.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap 1-5, 8, 9, and the purport of the whole pleading
2. The parties' assertion
A. The Defendants, in collusion with Defendant D of the first instance trial, prepared a false lease contract, applied for a loan from the Plaintiff as a pre-tax title, and acquired the loan by fraud.
Therefore, the defendants are obligated to pay the amount of KRW 84,00,000, which was acquired by deception in collaboration with the defendant of the first instance trial D.
Even if Defendant C does not have intentionally participated in the fraud, it should be held liable for aiding and abetting by negligence of Defendant B and Defendant D with respect to the preparation of the lease contract without properly verifying the authenticity of the contract at least.
B. The Defendants merely belonged to Defendant D of the first instance trial and do not agree to acquire the Defendants by deception with Defendant D of the first instance trial.
Defendant B, who posted online leased objects, was believed to have entered into a normal lease contract with Defendant C, who found it. Accordingly, Defendant C only entered into a contract with Defendant C, and Defendant D of the first instance trial thereafter.