대여금
1. The defendant's appeal and the request for return of provisional payment are all dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be applied for the return of the provisional payment.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in this case is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for a dismissal as follows or supplement of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure
Following the third fifth half of the judgment of the first instance, to change “3. Design, supervision and measurement costs” to “6. 6. 6. 69,900 won” in the fifth fourth fourth part of the judgment of the first instance, which added “3. 6. 6. 3. 203. 6. 203.” to “112,069,90 won” in the fifth fourth part of the judgment of the first instance to “112,06,90 won (i.e., total litigation costs of KRW 117,413,90 - total litigation costs of KRW 5,34,000).
2. Supplementary judgment
A. Issues 1) “The money (702,762,310 won) that the Plaintiff leased to the Defendant Cooperative was used as ① operational expenses of the Plaintiff (183,00,000 won), ② safety inspection expenses (31,816,120 won), ③ design service expenses (311,816,120 won), ④ partition of co-owned property (112,069,900 won), ⑤ correction expenses for district units (20,460,000 won), ⑤ legal expenses (35,959,290 won), and 7 reserve (539,000 won). The first instance court determined that “The Plaintiff agreed to waive the Plaintiff’s agreement at the time of discontinuance of the instant business in the event of loans related to expenses.” Accordingly, the Defendant Cooperative asserted that “the Plaintiff agreed to waive all other loans related to expenses,” even if the obligee expressed its intent to waive or waive the obligee’s intent to do so.”
The waiver or exemption of the obligation has the burden of proof to the claimant.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Da206328, Aug. 24, 2017). 3) For the following reasons, when comprehensively considering the meaning of evidence (Evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 14) inconsistent with the argument of the Defendant Union, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone provides a loan for the remainder of expenses.