대여금
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
1. The reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the parts added or written by the following paragraph (2). Thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. A portion used for adding or cutting;
(a)No. 11 of the decision of the first instance will add to the following:
“C actually operated the Plaintiff Company as one of its owners, and there were many cases using the passbook under its name due to credit problems, and C used the passbook under the name of the Defendant, and some of the money deposited by C in the passbook under the name of the Defendant was used by C while operating the business, and if C embezzled and deposited the money of the Plaintiff Company, it may not be a loan to the Defendant. Moreover, on January 30, 2014, KRW 11,710,616 was based on the loan certificate, and actually deposited KRW 11,710,616 with the Defendant’s account on January 30, 2014. This is not the amount borrowed by the Defendant because C returned KRW 11,710,616, which was deposited by the Plaintiff Company on January 28, 2014.”
B. Part 4 of the first instance judgment and Part 1 of Part 4 to Part 5 are as follows.
However, as long as the establishment of a disposal document is recognized as authentic, the court should recognize the existence and content of the declaration of intent in accordance with the language and text stated in the disposal document, unless there is any clear and acceptable counter-proof as to the denial of the contents stated therein. As long as the money was received between the Plaintiff and the Defendant and the Defendant and the Defendant as a disposal document loan certificate was made, it shall be deemed that there was an expression of intent to lend and borrow money between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. In full view of the aforementioned evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings in each of the above evidence and evidence Nos. 10 and 11, as alleged by the Defendant, the KRW 1,710,616 was remitted from the Plaintiff’s future deposit account in the name of the Defendant, and thereafter, from the Plaintiff’s account on January 30, 2014 to the Defendant’s future deposit account in the name of the Defendant.