대여금
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 defendant's grounds for appeal citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the argument in the court of first instance, and even if the evidence examined in the court of first instance shows the records, the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance are justified.
Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows, except where the judgment below is added to the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, it is citing it as is by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure
2. Additional determination
A. Of the judgment of the first instance, the following phrases are added to the third sentence following the second sentence.
[Additionally, the Defendant filed a complaint against the Plaintiff, etc. on the grounds that “the Plaintiff, etc. altered the evidence No. 1 (the evidence)” with the investigative agency for the alteration of the private document and the uttering of the altered private document, but rather, the Defendant was indicted on the ground that “the Plaintiff, etc. did not have altered the above loan certificate,” and subsequently, was sentenced to a judgment of conviction of two years of suspended execution in June in the court of first instance (Supreme Court Decision 2017Da1014 Decided February 21, 2018), which was sentenced to a judgment of conviction of two years of suspended execution in the court of first instance (Supreme Court Decision 2017Da1014 Decided February 21, 2018), but the appellate court also dismissed the appeal by the Defendant (the Defendant).
B. Of the judgment of the first instance, the following sentences shall be added to the phrase “it is prohibited from being taken” under the second sentence below.
1) Although the Defendant stated that Gap evidence No. 1 (Evidence No. 1) was lent money by the Plaintiff, the actual borrower is "E Co., Ltd. or C, which is the actual operator thereof" (hereinafter referred to as "foreign Co., Ltd.").
The defendant asserts that the above loan claims should be settled together, since the non-party company has the loan claims of KRW 234,123,000 against the non-party company, etc.