대여금
1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.
Purport of claim and appeal
1.
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for deletion, modification, correction, or addition as follows. As such, the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Part 6 of the judgment of the first instance court (as stated in Section 2, it is difficult to believe) is deleted from the same page 8.
B. No. 6 of the judgment of the court of first instance is changed to "No. 1 million won on Nov. 21, 2009, and 8. 2 million won on Dec. 21, 2009," "No. 1 million won on Sep. 7, 2009, 80 million won on Nov. 21, 2009, and 2 million won on Dec. 21, 2009," respectively.
C. On the 7th judgment of the first instance court, the “extinctive prescription change” in the 5th judgment is corrected to read “extinctive prescription change”.
On June 18, 2009, the first instance court’s decision No. 7 correction was made “Before June 18, 2009” as “Before June 18, 2006.”
E. On the 8th, 5, 6, and 8th of the first instance judgment, the phrase “17 days” or “17.” shall be corrected as “7 days” or “7.” respectively, and the phrase “ September 17, 2009” as “ September 7, 2006.”
(f)on the 9th decision of the first instance court, the following additions are made:
Although the Defendants asserted to the effect that a series of monetary loan contracts recognized by paragraphs (1) and (2) are null and void in violation of Articles 103 and 104 of the Civil Act, there is no evidence to acknowledge it.
The defendants asserts that a series of monetary loan agreements recognized in paragraphs 1 and 2 are not the plaintiff but the plaintiff's wife, and that D's claim has become extinct due to the completion of commercial extinctive prescription.
Since the parties to each monetary loan contract acknowledged in paragraphs 1 and 2 are recognized as the plaintiff in addition to the descriptions of evidence Nos. 14, 15, and 16 as well as the whole purport of evidence submitted by the plaintiff, the parties to each monetary loan contract as provided in paragraphs 1 and 2 are without merit.
2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder.