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 reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for the addition of the defendant's judgment as to this case, and therefore, it is identical to the part concerning the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 4
【The portion to be determined additionally] The defendant's representative B borrowed KRW 50 million from D's representative of the C church, but the defendant asserts that the above church should pay KRW 100 million to the plaintiff and the plaintiff should pay KRW 50 million among them to the defendant, and that there was no borrowing KRW 50 million from the plaintiff.
However, according to the evidence evidence No. 1, the fact that the defendant was transferred from the account of E, which is the plaintiff's employee, to the defendant's account on October 19, 2010, is recognized, but in addition to the whole purport of the argument in the testimony of witness D at the trial, the representative of the C church D entered into a contract for construction with the plaintiff and gave KRW 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
This part of the defendant's argument is without merit.
Even if the Defendant borrowed KRW 50 million from the Plaintiff, the Defendant paid the construction cost of the construction contract concluded between the Defendant and the Plaintiff in excess of KRW 1.2 billion. As such, the Defendant’s unjust enrichment return claim of KRW 30 million arising therefrom, 20 million, and 35.64 million from the construction cost of the said construction contract, which was included in the said construction contract, the Plaintiff had the Defendant pay the said construction cost to the Defendant, thereby set off the amount equal to the Plaintiff’s loan claim.