대여금
1. Revocation of the part against the defendant ordering payment in excess of the following portions in the judgment of the first instance:
1. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant lent to the Defendant a promissory note of KRW 40 million with a check, KRW 10 million with a total of KRW 50 million, and KRW 50 million with a total of KRW 50 million, and that the Plaintiff received a promissory note of KRW 50 million from the Defendant. In full view of each of the written evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the Plaintiff issued four copies of the instant promissory note of KRW 10 million with a face value around April 2013, and the Defendant prepared and delivered a promissory note of KRW 50 million with a face value of KRW 50 million with the Plaintiff on May 4, 2013 (hereinafter “instant promissory note”). In light of the fact that the Defendant issued the instant promissory note of KRW 50 million with the Plaintiff, the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 50 million with a debt against the Plaintiff, and thus, the Defendant issued the instant promissory note to the Plaintiff.
(2) The Defendant’s assertion is without merit, since the Plaintiff’s explanation of the intent to pay the face value of the Promissory Notes to the Plaintiff on March 2013, 2013, and the Plaintiff invested KRW 40 million in the call text business around April 2013. Since it is difficult to operate call text business, the Plaintiff’s offering of the Promissory Notes to the Defendant is merely an assertion that the Defendant would pay the face value of the Promissory Notes. However, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit since the Promissory Notes constitutes the Defendant’s expression of intent to pay the face value of the Promissory Notes. Accordingly, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit from January 17, 2015, the following day of the instant complaint, which is a duplicate of the instant complaint, to the extent of its obligation to pay damages for delay calculated on September 25, 2015, which is the first instance judgment, to the extent of its obligation to pay damages for delay by 0% per annum from the day following the date of each lawsuit under the Civil Act.