대여금
1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:
The plaintiff, the defendant A, and B are jointly and severally 481,280.
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, and this part of the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the dismissal of Article 2-b of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows.
2. As to whether or not to lose the benefit of time after the aftermath portion is first used
A special contract for the loss of the benefit of time may be divided into two parts: (a) a special contract for the loss of the benefit of time under a condition precedent, which naturally causes the loss of the benefit of time and the arrival of the due date, and (b) a special contract for the loss of the benefit of time, which provides that the due date shall arrive after the obligee’s act of intent, such as the obligee’s notice or claim, after a certain cause occurs; and (c) a special contract for the loss of the benefit of time may fall under any one of the two. It is a matter of the parties’ intent interpretation, but it is reasonable to presume it as a special contract for the loss of the benefit of time under a condition precedent, in light of the fact that a special contract for the loss of the benefit of time is
(2) In light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the existence of a contract to lose the benefit of time. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the existence of a contract to lose the benefit of time. In so doing, it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the existence of a contract to lose the benefit of time. In so doing, it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the existence of a contract to lose the benefit of time, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, contrary to what is alleged in the ground of appeal.
Ultimately, the defendants' obligations against the plaintiff are due on December 8, 2009.