beta
Text
1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.
(e).
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On October 22, 2015, the Plaintiff, a credit service provider, extended a loan of KRW 5,000,000 to B at an annual interest rate of KRW 34.9%, and the loan period of KRW 60 months. During that process, the Defendant’s loan transaction agreement under the name of the Defendant (hereinafter “instant loan transaction agreement”) was prepared to provide a joint and several guarantee within the limit of KRW 6,50,000, and the copy was delivered to the Plaintiff.
B. Around that time, the employee in charge of the Plaintiff explained the terms and conditions of the loan and the contents of the joint and several sureties to the Defendant, and confirmed whether the intent of the joint and several sureties and the copy of the loan transaction contract of this case were written in writing. The Defendant confirmed all the above joint and several sureties and the copy of the loan transaction contract
The employee in charge of the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to submit the original copy of the loan transaction agreement of this case, and the Defendant respondeded to the submission, but did not deliver the original copy of the loan transaction contract to the Plaintiff.
C. The debt of the above loan remains at the present principal amount of KRW 5,00,000 and interest and delay damages from December 29, 2015.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry and recording of evidence A of subparagraphs 1 through 8, purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff’s claim is jointly and severally guaranteed within the limit of KRW 6,500,000,000, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 5,000,000 as the guaranteed debt, and the damages for delay thereof.
In electively, the Defendant, at the telephone conversation with the Plaintiff’s staff, had the Plaintiff deceiving the Plaintiff by expressing his/her intent to consent to guarantee and to deliver the original copy of the contract, and had the Plaintiff pay the loan, thereby incurring property damage equivalent to the above loan obligations. As such, the Defendant is liable for tort liability against the Plaintiff.
(b) judgment (1).