대여금
1. According to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff)’s counterclaim that was changed from the trial of the first instance, the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) is against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).
1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;
A. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning the instant case is next to the judgment of the first instance.
In addition to the amendment as stated in paragraph (2) and addition of the judgment in the next trial, the relevant part shall be cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the judgment in the first instance is the same as that in the principal lawsuit.
B. Part 1) The amendment of the first instance court’s 3rd 17th 17th 17th 3rd 17th 200 won (=35,000,000 -130,000 -130,830,000 won -130,830,000 won -130,830,8300,000 won - 21,770,830,300 won for the first 16th 16th 16th 16th 16th 16th 28 “A” - the witness of the first instance court’s 28th 5th 15th 9th 15th 9 of the first instance court’s 15th 9th 9th 15th 15th 15th 300,00 won (2,185,380,300,000 won)
3) On July 15, 2008, 200 Won 2,071,54,500 (excluding the Defendant’s deposit of KRW 4,00,00,00 in the AC account on June 25, 2008) of the 15th 13th 13th 13th 2008 “B” (excluding the Plaintiff’s assertion to the purport of pointing this out)’s deposit of KRW 2,071,154,50,50 (excluding the Defendant’s deposit of KRW 4,00,00 in the AC account on June 25, 2008)’s deposit of money to the Plaintiff. From June 2008, 208, “B” of the 16th 16th 2,075,750,504,507,507,710,507,507,500.
4. The 1,786,304,50 won as above exceeds the amount of 1,770,883,300 won which the Plaintiff loaned to the Defendant. Thus, even if the Plaintiff recognized all of the costs stated in the loan statement as the loan statement as set forth in the evidence No. 13, which was arranged by the Plaintiff, the Defendant still remains to have the amount to be repaid to the Plaintiff.