보관금반환
1. The request for intervention of an independent party intervenor raised in the trial shall be rejected;
2. The defendant's appeal.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: (a) the defendant's defense of set-off No. 5 is used for the reasons of the judgment of the court of first instance; and (b) other than adding a judgment on the intervenor's independent party participation application, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance; (c) the defendant, as it is, pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, lent KRW 1.169 billion to the plaintiff from February 9, 2004 to April 2, 2012; and (d) the defendant, as part of the judgment "the judgment of the defendant's defense of set-off", from September 6, 2004 to May 2, 2014, after receiving a total of KRW 1.192 million from the plaintiff, including the amount claimed by the plaintiff, and instead, the defendant cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim of KRW 6.97 billion.
It is insufficient to recognize the fact that the Defendant borrowed and returned the details as alleged by the Defendant to the Plaintiff during the above period, and the Defendant has a loan claim equivalent to the above amount, on the grounds that there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, the above assertion by the Defendant is without merit. This is without merit.
3. Determination as to the application for intervention by an independent party
A. During the Intervenor’s management of the Intervenor’s property, the Intervenor embezzled the sum of KRW 5.4 billion owned by the Intervenor, and entered into the instant agreement to transfer money in order of the Plaintiff, E, Defendant, and the Plaintiff to clean money.
Therefore, since the Plaintiff embezzled the money owned by the Intervenor and paid the money to the Defendant, the Intervenor raises objection against the Plaintiff and the Defendant.