대여금
1. The part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid under the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked.
The defendant.
1. The facts subsequent to the facts of recognition do not conflict between the parties, or may be acknowledged by considering the whole purport of the pleadings as a whole in each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 2-1, 2, 4-1, 5, and 12-1.
The defendant established C on July 24, 1996 and operated a private teaching institute as representative director. The plaintiff did not receive the total of KRW 50,000,000 from C to 2007 while working as an instructor of the building electrical engineer group of the above private teaching institute.
B. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff lent KRW 50,000,000 to the Defendant on October 23, 2006 and KRW 25,000,000 on November 22, 2006.
2. The assertion and judgment
A. 1) According to the above facts finding as to the loan claim, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff a total of KRW 50,000,000 and delay damages for the above loan. 2) The defendant's assertion as to the defendant's repayment is asserted that since the defendant borrowed the above KRW 50,00,000 from the plaintiff and issued ten copies of the household check of KRW 5,000,000 at face value to the plaintiff, and paid all the price coefficients, the above loan debt was fully repaid.
In full view of the statement in Eul evidence No. 7 and the purport of the argument as a whole, the defendant's assertion of repayment is without merit, since two copies of the family check of KRW 5,000,000 in par value issued by the defendant on July 30, 2007, and eight copies of the family check of KRW 5,000 in face value and KRW 5,00,000 in face value are paid for each exchange on August 27, 2007. However, there is no evidence to prove that each of the above family checks settled by the defendant was delivered to the plaintiff for the fulfillment of the above loan obligation.
B. On December 2, 2013, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay KRW 50,000,000 for the tuition fees to the Plaintiff Co., Ltd. and sought payment of KRW 50,00,000 to the Defendant.
According to Gap evidence No. 11-1, the records are as follows.