2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

A. The defendant is the land dog.

B. The Plaintiff entered into a contract for land supply with the Defendant, and continued to be supplied by the Defendant from April 28, 2009 to March 9, 2012, and paid the price to the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, purport of whole pleading

2. The assertion and judgment

A. 1) Determination on the claim amounting to KRW 5 million 1) In light of the purport of the entire argument in the statement of evidence No. 1, it is recognized that the Defendant prepared and issued a cash custody certificate to the Plaintiff on August 23, 2009 that the Plaintiff keeps the loan amounting to KRW 5 million. Barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff a loan amounting to KRW 5 million and delay damages. 2) The Defendant’s determination on the Defendant’s assertion argues to the purport that the Defendant extinguished the loan claim by transferring the loan amount to the Plaintiff on April 9, 2012, and by paying the land amounting to KRW 500,000,000,000,000 to the Plaintiff on payment in lieu of payment in lieu of the amount of KRW 500,00

In light of the following facts and circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the above loan claims were extinguished due to the defendant's repayment and delivery of reasonable opinion around April 2012, in light of the above facts, the above facts of recognition, the evidence mentioned above, the evidence mentioned above, and evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, and the whole purport of the pleadings.

① In order to be supplied with land dogs, the Plaintiff recognized that the Plaintiff paid the price in advance to the Defendant and received a cash storage certificate as above. The land transaction was terminated on April 2012 among the original Defendant. On April 9, 2012, the Defendant transferred KRW 4,50,000 to the Plaintiff via the account in the name of C (the Defendant’s children).

② Even according to the Plaintiff’s assertion, on March 2018, where approximately six years have elapsed since the date of the said transaction, the Plaintiff made a prior payment to the Defendant, and the check transaction had been resumed. If the Defendant’s above obligation remains, the Plaintiff would make a prior payment in order to resume the transaction.