beta
Text
1. The defendant's loan case against the plaintiff (appointed party) and deceased C is about the Daejeon District Court 2007Gau196294.
Reasons
1. Presumed facts
A. On January 21, 2007, the Plaintiff (Appointed; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the deceased C (hereinafter “the deceased”) prepared a certificate of borrowed money (hereinafter “the certificate of borrowed money”) stating that the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 20 million from the Defendant on a monthly interest rate of 5%, and issued it to the Defendant.
B. The Defendant, based on the loan certificate of this case, filed a lawsuit claiming a loan with the Plaintiff and the Deceased as 2007 Ghana196294. On October 26, 2007, the Defendant rendered a decision on performance recommendation (hereinafter “decision on performance recommendation of this case”) to the effect that “the Defendant jointly and severally pays to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 20 million and the amount calculated at the rate of 60% per annum from January 21, 2007 to the date of full payment,” which became final and conclusive around that time.
C. On February 21, 2017, the Deceased died while the lawsuit is pending, and the Plaintiff is the spouse of the Deceased, and the Appointed D and E are the deceased’s children.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1, 2, and 3, and the purport of the whole pleading
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The summary of the parties’ assertion argues that “the deceased borrowed KRW 20 million from January 17, 2005 to January 2006 by the defendant, and all of them were prepared on January 21, 2007,” and that “the deceased borrowed KRW 20 million at the date of his argument, but all of them were satisfied. The deceased prepared the instant loan certificate at the end that he would lend the gambling fund, but did not actually receive KRW 20 million. Therefore, the loan contract between the plaintiff, the deceased and the defendant was not concluded. ② Even if the deceased failed to pay KRW 20 million, the deceased borrowed the above money for the purpose of providing it for the gambling fund, and thus the contract for the monetary loan is null and void as it is in violation of Article 103 of the Civil Act.
B. Judgment 1. Loan Agreement