대여금
1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.
Purport of claim and appeal
1.
1. The reasoning of this court's explanation of this judgment is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is modified as stated in the following Paragraph 2. Thus, it is citing it as it is by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Parts to be dried;
A. On the 3rd and thirdrd of the judgment of the court of first instance, the Defendant’s “Defendant B” and the 12th and third of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be applied to “Defendant B” and the 13th of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be applied to “B” respectively.
(b) Decision of the court of the first instance (C).
3) Defendant C has been making up the remainder as follows. From around 2008 to around 2008, Defendant C borrowed money each time Defendant B’s business funds are urgently needed, Defendant B’s financial status has deteriorated due to the Plaintiff’s laundry money, etc., and the Plaintiff’s disposal of the apartment in this case and continued to operate the business. After entering into the instant sales contract with the purchase price of KRW 210 million, Defendant B paid the remainder to Defendant B with the purchase price of KRW 41 million and paid the remainder to Defendant B, and Defendant B used the remainder to repay the existing debt for continuing the business. As such, the instant sales contract does not constitute a fraudulent act, nor did Defendant C have any intent to impair the Plaintiff.”
(c) Article 3-3 of the grounds for the judgment of the first instance;
this subsection shall be filled by the following:
Defendant B’s judgment as to the offset defense of Defendant B is as follows: (a) KRW 163,289,000 (total washing money of KRW 2,047,789,00; (b) KRW 1,884,50,000 for the Plaintiff’s laundry payment; and (c) specific calculation details are as indicated in the Defendants’ written statement “the details of claim for and payment of the laundry money” in attached Form 28 March 2016.
(3) The Plaintiff and the Defendant asserted that the Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff’s assertion, but it is insufficient to acknowledge the facts of the above assertion solely on the basis of each of the evidence of Nos. 6 through 8, and Nos. 12 through 14 (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 201Da1248, Aug. 2, 2012).