beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The plaintiff alleged that the real estate in this case owned by the plaintiff was loaned KRW 124,80,000 from the Nonghyup Bank as a collateral at the interest rate of 3% per annum, and 8,000 won was loaned from the savings bank and the lending company at the interest rate of 16 to 30% per annum.
On February 2, 2015, Nonparty B proposed on February 2, 2015 that the Plaintiff should consolidate all of the above loans and shift them into 9% loans with interest rate. For this purpose, Nonparty B was entitled to receive a high interest rate loan.
Accordingly, on February 17, 2015, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 38,000,000 at the interest rate of 34.9% per annum from 160,000 from the Defendant on February 25, 2015 (hereinafter “instant loan”). Moreover, on February 25, 2015, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 160,000 from the Defendant at the interest rate of 24% per annum (hereinafter “instant loan”).
Meanwhile, in order to provide the instant real estate as security for the instant loan, the Plaintiff prepared documents necessary for establishing a collateral with Nonparty C, who is an employee of the Defendant, and completed the registration of establishment of the instant real estate on February 26, 2015.
However, B did not change the interest rate of 9% per annum, unlike the commitment.
Therefore, the mortgage contract of this case was concluded by deceiving B and C, who is an employee of the defendant, and the plaintiff is revoked. The defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for cancellation of the mortgage establishment registration of this case to the plaintiff.
2. According to the records of Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 3 and Eul's evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including the number of branch offices) as alleged by the plaintiff, it is recognized that the plaintiff obtained the loan of this case from the defendant as the broker of Eul and completed the registration of creation of mortgage of this case as security.
However, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is that C is the defendant's agent with respect to the mortgage contract of this case and that C has concluded the mortgage contract of this case by deceiving the plaintiff.