beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to pay below shall be revoked.
The defendant.
Reasons
1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings as to the cause of the claim Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including the provisional number), the plaintiff loaned 300,000,000 won to the non-party B on September 9, 2009 at interest rate of 8% per annum, the due date of payment on September 9, 201, and at 18% per annum for delay (hereinafter "the above loan of this case"), and the plaintiff, B, and the defendant agreed on September 17, 2010 to take over the above obligation of the loan of the plaintiff against the plaintiff (hereinafter "the above obligation assumption of this case"). Meanwhile, the plaintiff collected part of the above loan of this case, interest and delay damages, interest and interest, interest and delay damages, and 129,235,239 won.
Therefore, the Defendant, barring special circumstances, has the obligation to pay the principal and interest of the above loan obligation amounting to KRW 174,461,170 ( KRW 45,195,931, KRW 129,265,239) as the Plaintiff seeks.
2. Judgment on the defendant's defense
A. The Defendant’s assertion that the instant loan was made by D, who was an employee of the Plaintiff, on the ground that D was the nominal owner of B, and as a result, D requested D to acquire the obligation of the loan in the audit of the Plaintiff.
E had C in a de facto marital relationship obtain the name of the real estate provided as a security for the above loan, and attempted to obtain the loan obligation, but C could not receive the loan due to the lack of credit.
Accordingly, E has made prior consultation with the Plaintiff’s employees and changed the debtor again to another person when two to three months elapse, and thus, there is no problem. Upon requesting the assumption of an obligation, the Defendant has lent only the name in a formal manner and made the Defendant assume the obligation by lending it.
In addition, at the time of undertaking the obligation of this case, the Plaintiff was subject to audit because excess loans of D inside the same limit has already been at issue, and the Plaintiff was the Defendant.