beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On October 12, 2010, a notary public drafted a notarial deed under a monetary loan agreement with the effect that “The Plaintiff, on December 31, 2009, lent KRW 4,000,000 (hereinafter “instant loan”) to the Defendant on June 30, 2010 and 49% per annum, and D guaranteed the Defendant’s debt.”
B. On July 13, 2012, the Defendant filed an application for bankruptcy and immunity with the Jeonju District Court Decision 201Hadan87, 201Ma887, and was declared bankrupt on July 13, 2012, and was granted a decision to grant immunity on August 2, 2012 (hereinafter “instant decision to grant immunity”). The said decision to grant immunity was finalized on February 19, 2014.
C. On December 31, 2009, the Defendant acquired 49% of the interest amount per annum from the Plaintiff on the ground that “if the Defendant borrowed KRW 4,000,000 to the Plaintiff without any intention and ability to repay, it would have to pay the principal to the Plaintiff at least 49% per annum until June 30, 2010.”
‘A summary order of KRW 1,00,000 was issued on July 11, 2016 for criminal facts (Seoul District Court Decision 2016Da3254), and the above judgment was finalized on July 23, 2016.
【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap's 1 through 4 (including virtual numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul's 1, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. The Defendant, on December 31, 2009, obtained the instant loan by deceiving the Plaintiff on the part of December 31, 2009, and the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the above loan amounting to KRW 4,000,000 and damages for delay from January 1, 2010.
B. The Defendant, upon the decision to grant immunity of this case, was fully exempted from the Plaintiff’s obligation, and thus, the Defendant did not have a duty to repay the above amount to the Plaintiff
3. Determination
A. According to the above evidence, the Defendant suffered damages equivalent to the amount of the above loan by deceiving the Plaintiff on December 31, 2009 without any intention and ability to actually repay.