대여금
1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendant is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
purport, purport, and.
1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for adding the following judgments, thereby citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
(1) The Plaintiff’s co-defendant B (hereinafter “B”) asserted in the first instance trial as follows: (a) the Plaintiff’s co-defendant B (hereinafter “B”) that was separated and confirmed as a result of appeal; (b) additional determination 1.
(2) In order to operate a mobile phone sales business jointly with the Defendant, the Defendant was aware of all the above circumstances, and the Defendant actually operated the mobile phone sales business along with B. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 30 million, interest thereon, and damages for delay. (2) According to the written evidence No. 2 of the judgment No. 2 of the Plaintiff, it can be acknowledged that the Plaintiff remitted the amount of KRW 30 million to the Defendant’s account on September 14, 201. However, in full view of each fact-finding and the fact-finding and the fact-finding, the Plaintiff consulted with the Defendant on the loans at the time of the above transfer, without any consultation with the Defendant, and the Defendant consistently stated that the Defendant was the sole operator of the mobile phone sales business with the Defendant’s account to operate the mobile phone sales business, and there was no evidence to acknowledge the change in the Plaintiff’s personal account No. 2154, Dec. 21, 201.
The plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.
3. Conclusion, the judgment of the first instance is justifiable, and the Plaintiff’s appeal against the Defendant is dismissed as it is without merit.