대여금
1. All appeals filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) on the principal lawsuit and counterclaim are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be principal lawsuit and counterclaim.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance was the evidence additionally submitted to this court, and a implied delegation contract was concluded between the plaintiff and the defendant regarding the management of the plaintiff's property, the establishment of foundation, etc., as alleged in the defendant's counterclaim.
(1) The lower court determined that the Defendant’s new argument regarding the principal claim is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant agreed on the amount of remuneration under the delegation contract, and that the lower court’s reasoning is identical to that of the first instance court’s judgment, and thus, the lower court’s determination is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, as it is, inasmuch as the Defendant’s new argument regarding the principal claim is added under the first instance court’s 6th sentence.
2. As to the additional determination, the Defendant first states that each monetary loan certificate sent by himself to the Plaintiff through electronic mail constitutes an act of receiving money without permission, and the Defendant merely sent out a form to explain that the money transaction between the Defendant and other creditors may not constitute an act of receiving money without permission, and as such, it does not express any intent to repay the Plaintiff’s loan as stated in each monetary loan certificate, the expression of intent to repay the Plaintiff’s loan constitutes an act of receiving money without permission under Article 107 of the Civil Act. The expression of intent to repay money, which is contained in each monetary loan certificate, constitutes an act of non-performance under Article 107 of the Civil Act. The expression of intent to repay money, which was expressed several times through electronic mail, is merely a declaration of intention to adjust the relationship with the Plaintiff on the part of the Plaintiff, etc., and the Plaintiff also knew or could have known
However, it is insufficient to find that the expression of intent of repayment contained in the above loan certificate alone with the statement No. 6-5 alone is not sufficient to acknowledge that the plaintiff knew or could have known of the fact, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.
On the other hand, the defendant was sent by electronic mail.