beta
Text
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for adding the judgment under Paragraph 2 below, thereby citing it in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Additional determination
A. The plaintiffs' assertion ① The defendant was aware of the names of the plaintiffs, and even if not known, he did not know.
Even if there is gross negligence.
② Even if a nominal lender is recognized as the liability of the Plaintiffs under Article 24 of the Commercial Act, the Plaintiffs are no longer liable for the payment of the instant goods, since the nominal borrower first acquired the Plaintiffs’ obligation to pay the goods, and the Defendant also consented thereto.
B. Determination 1: The evidence and circumstances submitted by the Plaintiffs alone are insufficient to acknowledge that the Defendant knew or did not know the fact that the Plaintiffs are merely the nominal lender due to gross negligence, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
(2) Evidence Nos. 4, 4 (including each number), and 4, as stated in the note No. 4, to the chief executive officer: “Fair Resolution by December 2017,” and “C among the plaintiffs is omitted.”
B No. 4: 400,000 won per month from August 20, 2017 to March 2019;
The plaintiff C also omitted, and the plaintiff G did not participate in it. The plaintiff G did not object to the violation.
The testimony of the witness I of the first instance trial alone, even if I assumed the obligation of the plaintiffs, if it is not clear whether the obligation of the plaintiffs is discharged, whether it is a overlapping acceptance or not, and if it is not clear whether the obligation of the plaintiffs is discharged, it is a matter of interpretation of the intention of the parties specified in the contract to assume the obligation, and if it is not clear whether it is a discharge acceptance or an overlapping acceptance, it shall be deemed that it is taken over repeatedly