대여금
1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The Plaintiff asserted that: (a) on December 12, 2014, the Plaintiff lent KRW 5,000,000 to Defendant B; (b) on July 27, 2015, when Defendant B was unable to repay this, the Plaintiff decided to transfer the entire house of the skin management room operated at the time of Defendant B to the Plaintiff; and (c) on January 9, 2015, Defendant C, the main owner of which Defendant B organized and manages a system with which Defendant B is the members of the fraternity, agreed to pay KRW 5,00,000 to the Plaintiff; and (c) on July 27, 2015, Defendant B lent KRW 5,000,000 to the Plaintiff by each share of KRW 20,000,000 paid to the Plaintiff by July 29, 2016.
2. As to the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant B, the health department, and the evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (each loan certificate) are insufficient to acknowledge the authenticity by only the statement No. 4, and it cannot be admitted as evidence as there is no other evidence. The result of the examination of the party concerned by the first instance trial against the Defendant C is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff lent money to the Defendant B as alleged in the above. The Plaintiff’s claim for this portion is without merit, as there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
As to the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant C, comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire argument as to the Plaintiff’s health care room, the statement of No. 3, and the result of the first instance court’s party examination against the Defendant C, it may be acknowledged that the Defendant C promised to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 5,00,000,00 of the time limit money to be paid to the Defendant B. However, in full view of the overall purport of the argument as seen earlier, the agreement to pay the said time limit money in full view of the overall purport of the argument as a whole can be acknowledged as having been made for the repayment or security of the Plaintiff’s obligation to the Plaintiff, and as recognized earlier, the above claim against the Defendant