대여금등
1. The judgment of the first instance court, including the claim that the plaintiff changed in the trial court, shall be modified as follows:
The defendant.
1. The scope of this court’s judgment at the court of first instance claimed payment of KRW 10 million in total, among the remainder of loans as of October 26, 201, KRW 5 million in the exchange contract deposit as of January 13, 201, KRW 30 million in the exchange contract deposit as of January 13, 201, KRW 20 million in the part payment under the above exchange contract, ④ out of the remainder of the above exchange contract, KRW 20 million in the above exchange contract, and ⑤ KRW 3 million in the loan loan as of October 31, 201.
Of the above claims, the court of first instance ordered the Plaintiff to pay the Plaintiff KRW 18 million by accepting the claims, and KRW 5% per annum from April 23, 2015 to November 25, 2015, and damages for delay calculated by 15% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment. ③ The claims were dismissed. ④ The claims were dismissed.
On the other hand, only the Plaintiff appealed against the claim, and ④ The portion was changed to the loan 20 million won on February 24, 2012.
Therefore, the scope of the party's trial is limited to the above (3) part payment of the exchange contract 20 million won and the loan 20 million won on February 24, 2012.
2. Claim for the return of the intermediate payment of KRW 20 million.
A. The Defendant asserted upon the Plaintiff’s delegation, and entered into an exchange contract with D on January 13, 2012. The Plaintiff agreed to pay the Plaintiff the difference of D 20 million won (the contract amounting to KRW 20 million, intermediate payment of KRW 20 million, and the balance of KRW 170 million). The Defendant embezzled the intermediate payment of KRW 20 million from D without the Plaintiff’s permission.
B. The plaintiff's assertion is not sufficient to acknowledge the facts of the plaintiff's assertion only with the descriptions of Gap's evidence, Gap's evidence Nos. 3, 4, and 6. The plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.
3. There is no dispute between the parties to the claim for return of loans as of February 24, 2012, or comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in each of the statements in subparagraphs 7-1 and 2 of the evidence No. 7-1 and 2, it is recognized that the Plaintiff specified and lent KRW 20 million to the Defendant on February 24, 2012 as of March 30, 2012, and thus, the Defendant is due for the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s repayment period.