대여금
1. The defendants' appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is as stated in the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal of part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows 2. Thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of
2. On August 8, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a claim for the amount of KRW 60,000,000 with the person who received reimbursement from Defendant B, respectively, at the lower part of the judgment of the first instance, on the two sides of the second instance judgment, the Plaintiff filed a claim for the said amount. “(1) The Plaintiff filed a claim on August 8, 2015, stating that the sum of KRW 27,00,000,000,00 in total, including KRW 33,000,000,000,000,000 from Defendant B, to a person who received reimbursement from Defendant B.”
3 pages 3 of the judgment of the court of first instance (hereinafter referred to as "to borrow the purchase cost of the house to be residing together by the father") shall be "to borrow the purchase cost of the house to be residing together by the father and the purchase cost of the house and the purchase cost of the house for the interior of the house."
In the first instance judgment, the part 3 to 18 of the 16-18 portion of the 16-18 portion of the 3rd part of the 19th instance judgment, “B appears to have been aware that Defendant C and C would have been aware of the fact that part of the purchase fund of the instant housing and the interior cost would have been borrowed and prepared by the group.” “B not only included the issue of purchase of the instant housing with Defendant C but also recognized that in addition to the purchase price of the instant housing, the purchase price of the instant housing was each required for KRW 20 million for the interior cost of the instant housing and KRW 10 million for the household purchase cost. In light of the amount of each of the above expenses, considering the fact that Defendant C would have been aware of the fact that each of the above expenses was incurred at the time, Defendant C would not clearly state the source of each of the above expenses, taking into account the fact that each of the above expenses was not clearly known.”
3. Conclusion, the plaintiff .