계금
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 this court is as stated in the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, on the ground that this part of basic facts is identical to that of the judgment of the court of first instance, “1. Fact-finding” written by the court of first instance.
However, in the above judgment No. 2, “1-B,” the phrase “the Plaintiff is excluded from October 2015 with the deposit money of the instant fraternity,” and the phrase “the Defendant” in the above judgment No. 2, “B,” respectively, is deemed to read “the Plaintiff as the deposit money of the instant fraternity except for the portion of October 2016 (see evidence 2) with the deposit money of the instant fraternity,” and “the Defendant” as “the Defendant,” respectively, to read “the Defendant, see the judgment No. 2017 High Court Decision No. 731, Dec. 7, 2018 (see Evidence 1 and 17, respectively) with the Daejeon District Court Branch Decision No. 2017Ma731, J-related case (see Evidence 2, 2018).
2. Determination
A. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the reasoning of this court is as follows: (a) the main text of the judgment of the court of first instance, “a summary of the parties’ assertion” and “3. Judgment” are the same from the main text of the judgment of the court of first instance until the preceding part of the judgment of the parties’ claim. Therefore, this Court
B. The Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff and F were admitted to the instant fraternity, even if comprehensively considering the following circumstances cited by the judgment of the first instance, based on the witness F’s witness F’s testimony and the purport of the entire pleadings, was paid half of the amount.
In other words, while "F gives testimony to the instant fraternity by having the Plaintiff pay half of the amounts to be paid in kind by the Plaintiff in this Court (see, e.g., the third page of the witness examination record of F, Nov. 1, 2018), F does not know at any time whether the date of receiving the amount of money from the Defendant, who is the principal of the instant fraternity, is the date of receiving the amount of money from the Defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 6, 700, Nov. 1, 2018), and it did not have paid the amount of money to be paid in kind in addition to 1,50,000 won (see, e.g., the six pages).