채무부존재확인
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, and the witness H’s testimony which is insufficient to recognize the defendant’s assertion is rejected for the following reasons. Except where “the defendant’s husband and wife” as “the defendant’s husband and wife” in the second fifth sentence of the judgment of first instance is “from the defendant”, the grounds of the judgment of first instance are the same, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The Defendant asserts that the Defendant, on July 21, 201, agreed to grant C a loan of KRW 20 million on July 21, 201, and KRW 10 million on July 22, 2011 (hereinafter “instant loan”) to the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and C to use the registration of creation of the instant neighboring mortgage as the security for the said loan claim.
In this regard, the witness H testified some of the Defendant’s testimony to the purport that the Defendant’s Defendant’s wife I and C had the talk that the establishment registration of the instant nearby mortgage was to be used as a security for the said loan claim.
However, in light of the following facts and circumstances, it is not sufficient to acknowledge the Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff agreed not only C but also the Plaintiff to use the registration of the establishment of the relocation of the instant case in light of the following facts, which are acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the following facts and circumstances, the witness of the first instance trial C, witness of the first instance trial, and witness of the first instance trial H as a whole the purport of the entire pleadings, and there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise.
① On September 13, 2012, the Plaintiff and the Defendant led the instant lending, and C and I led the instant lending to the Plaintiff, and upon exercising authority several times against C, I received a summary order of KRW 500,000 (No. 16608) issued by the Busan District Court on September 26, 2012 due to a violation of the Act on the Fair Collection of Claims at Busan District Court’s District Court’s Decision on September 13, 2012.
(2) The trial requested by the defendant.