대여금
1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendant C shall be dismissed.
2. The Plaintiff’s appeal against Defendant B and the Defendants’ appeal.
1. The grounds for this part of the facts are as follows. The court’s reasoning is as follows: “H apartment” of No. 4 of the judgment of the court of first instance, “H apartment” of No. 9 of the judgment of the court of first instance, “AD apartment” of No. 6, “the witness” of No. 13, “the witness of the court of first instance” of the judgment, and “the part concerning No. 1” of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance
【Supplementary part of the written report】
G. From December 16, 2016 to November 25, 2017, Defendant B purchased each of the goods as indicated in the following [Attachment 3] (hereinafter “each of the goods of this case”), and the Plaintiff paid the purchase price for each of the goods of this case.
The purchase price for temporary goods listed in the [Attachment 1] No. 16, Dec. 16, 2016; - 25,000,000 on March 17, 2017, the goods specified in paragraph (1) of the [Attachment 1] of the [Attachment 1] No. 12,000,000 on September 18, 2017; and 12,000,000,000 of the goods specified in paragraph (3) of the [Attachment 13,80,000,000 on November 25, 2017, 200
2. The Plaintiff’s appeal as to the legitimacy of appeal against Defendant C is intended to seek revocation or alteration of the judgment disadvantageous to himself/herself. Thus, appeal against appeal against the judgment in favor of the Plaintiff cannot be allowed, and whether the judgment is disadvantageous to the appellant should, in principle, be determined at the time of filing the appeal in accordance with the main text of the judgment, based on the standard at the time of filing the appeal. If the appellant’s claim is accepted in whole, there is no benefit of appeal even if there is
(See Supreme Court Decision 98Du11915 delivered on November 10, 1998). In light of the above legal principles, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant C seeking payment of the loan amounting to KRW 20,000,000 and damages for delay from January 13, 2018. The fact that the court of first instance rendered a judgment citing the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant C is apparent.