대여금
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be revoked.
1. Whether a subsequent appeal is lawful;
A. On July 26, 2013, the court of first instance rendered a judgment citing the Plaintiff’s claim on July 26, 2013 after delivering to the Defendant a duplicate of the complaint of this case and a notice of date for pleading by public notice, and subsequently, rendered a judgment citing the Plaintiff’s claim, and served the original copy of the judgment to the Defendant by public notice. Thereafter, the Defendant inspected the records of trial of the first instance on April 17,
Therefore, the appeal of this case filed by the Defendant within two weeks from April 17, 2018, which became aware of the fact that the judgment of the court of first instance was served by public notice was served by public notice, is lawful as it was filed within the lawful appeal period.
A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant's husband B borrowed 20 million won from the plaintiff on October 13, 2007 and 12 million won on October 15 of the same year as interest rate of 12.17% per annum (payment on October 22). Since the defendant guaranteed the debt at the time of the above loan, the defendant is jointly and severally liable to pay the above loan and the damages for delay to the plaintiff.
Judgment
In light of the overall purport of pleadings, Gap 1 (Transaction of Transaction Record) , Gap 2 (including each transaction record (including each transaction record), and Eul 3 (Contents No. 1, 200,000 won on October 13, 2007, and 12 million won on October 15, 2007, respectively, under the pretext of expenses for opening Internet shopping mall operated by the plaintiff, etc., the plaintiff lent to the plaintiff each of the above loan amount of KRW 20,000 won on December 28, 2007 and February 29, 2008, each of which is after the above loan was borrowed to the plaintiff, and it is recognized that the plaintiff sent the contents of the loan to the defendant on March 28, 201 and the contents of the loan sought against the defendant on March 28, 201. The plaintiff's claim is without merit, and there is no reason to dismiss the plaintiff's claim.