beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On May 25, 2001, when the Defendant-friendly B worked for the Plaintiff’s Category C branch, a letter of loan transaction agreement in KRW 10,000,000 entered into by the Defendant as the borrower, and around that time the loan was executed (hereinafter “instant loan”).
B. On June 4, 201, when the maturity of the instant loan was extended, the Defendant prepared an additional loan transaction agreement to extend the maturity of the loan as of May 25, 2001 and submitted the necessary documents to the Plaintiff.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 6 through 11, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion
A. The content B, with the consent of the Defendant, carried out the instant loan that the Defendant was the borrower.
Even if such consent was not given in advance.
Even if the defendant has ratified the loan of this case after the fact, the defendant bears the above loan obligations.
B. In full view of the evidence adopted prior to the determination and the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the overall purport of the statements and arguments set forth in Gap evidence Nos. 4, 5, and 13, it is determined that Eul implemented the instant loan to the borrower without the prior consent of the defendant, and there was no ratification by the defendant.
① Without the prior consent of the Defendant, B prepared a loan transaction agreement (Evidence A 1) necessary for the instant loan in the name of the Defendant, and implemented the loan and paid interest.
② The Defendant’s certificate of employment (Evidence A 4) and the receipt for tax withholding for wage and salary income (Evidence A 5) kept by the Plaintiff may not be deemed to have been submitted for the instant loan because the time was considerably different from May 25, 200, the date of issuance on November 24, 200.
③ At the maturity of the instant loan, there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff notified the borrower to the Defendant.
④ On June 4, 2013, the Defendant Company A, including an additional agreement on loan transactions.