대여금
1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.
The purport of the claim and the appeal.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance regarding this case is as follows, and except for the case where the court makes an additional decision as to the defendants' assertion raised in this court, it is identical to the statement in the reasoning column of the judgment of the court of first instance (including the part in which specific monetary payment obligation is indicated in the conclusion of the judgment of the court of first instance) and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
No. 17,18 of the judgment of the first instance does not contain any counterclaims against the judgment of the first instance, “as follows:
In the criminal case against Defendant C, the Defendants asserted that the said judgment cannot be easily rejected in a criminal case. However, in light of the contents and purport of the aforementioned criminal judgment, it cannot be deemed that the said appellate court did not have determined that the said appellate court was an advance, etc. related to scrap metal transactions, which is not a loan, for the legal nature of the claim under the instant fair deed,” and therefore, the Defendants’ aforementioned assertion is without merit. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 23720, Feb. 29, 2012; Presidential Decree No. 24200, Feb. 29, 2012>
The following shall be added to the 7th judgment of the court of first instance, which is without merit “the 9th judgment.”
“” [The Defendants asserted that in the first instance court judgment related to Defendant C (Seoul Central District Court 2014 Gohap 1236 Gohap), the Defendant’s claim for the payment against the Plaintiff and the claim on the process deed of this case were offset against each other, and that the facts acknowledged in the criminal judgment cannot be easily rejected. However, the part related to the criminal judgment of the first instance court (the defraudation of KRW 250 million on February 29, 2012) was reversed and maintained in the above appellate court judgment (Seoul High Court 2015No 2402).
In addition, it can not be seen as related to the criminal judgment of the first instance court.