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 judgment of the court of first instance cited in the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the following “2. Additional Determination” as to the assertion added by the Defendants in this court. Thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance
2. Additional determination
A. The Defendants asserted that the first cash storage certificate was prepared in order to secure or guarantee the implementation according to the agreement that D and F established G (G Co., Ltd. and Lt.) as a local subsidiary of D and D in Libya to jointly carry out the project. As long as Defendant B completed the implementation, the first cash storage certificate becomes invalid. Thus, the Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff cannot respond to the instant claim.
In light of each of the evidence No. 1-1 and No. 3, the Plaintiff’s claim for loans of KRW 70,000,000 against the Defendants is deemed to have been jointly and severally guaranteed by Defendant B’s claim for loans of KRW 70,000,00 with the money borrowed from the Plaintiff as an individual date. However, each of the evidence submitted by the Defendants is insufficient to deem that the first cash storage certificate is to secure or guarantee the execution of joint ventures D and F, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the Defendants’ claim, and thus, the Defendants’ claim cannot be accepted.
B. The Defendants asserted that since the Plaintiff borrowed 70,000,000 won of the first cash storage certificate to the Plaintiff and contributed to Defendant B’s construction site, Defendant B is merely obligated to repay the above amount to D, and there is no obligation to repay it to the Plaintiff. Nevertheless, the Plaintiff’s payment of the above amount from the Defendants based on the first cash storage certificate leads to an unreasonable result in the Plaintiff’s receiving double profits even if the Plaintiff received the said money from the Defendants as a repayment for the loan, and thus, the Defendants cannot comply with the Plaintiff’s claim.
The first one is to determine the source of the above 70,000,000 won.