beta
(영문) 창원지방법원 2017.07.12 2016나55336

대여금

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: “The reply of the financial transaction information meeting at the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the head of the office of the office of the office of the office of the head of the office of the office of the office of the head of the office of the office of the head of the office of the office of the office of the head of the office of the office of the head of the office of the office of the office of the head of the office of the office of the head of the office of the office of the head of the office of the office of the office of the head of the office of the office of the first instance

2. Additional determination

A. On March 19, 199, when the plaintiff was attending a liquor distributor, the plaintiff lent KRW 50 million to the defendant who had engaged in food business and received full payment of KRW 50 million, etc., and the original defendant was at the end of November of the same year. However, the plaintiff requested to lend KRW 100 million to the defendant during October 1999, and the plaintiff opened the head of the Tong to the defendant's name, and then delivered it to the defendant by additionally depositing KRW 30 million to the above account.

3) On November 23, 1999, the Defendant deposited KRW 20 million in cash with the Plaintiff’s account at the head of the above head of the head of the head of the head of the head of the head of the Tong and KRW 70 million. However, since the check at hand is not possible to immediately withdraw, the Plaintiff cancelled the deposit, and again requested the Plaintiff to borrow money within the limit of the head of the head of the head of the head of the head of the head of the head of the head of the head office. (4) The Plaintiff again issued the head of the head of the head of the head of the head office to the Defendant, and the Defendant used the Plaintiff’s head of the head of the head of the head office until December 1999. The balance of the head of the head of the head office at the time was KRW 6725,758, but agreed between the Defendant and the Defendant on the principal amount

50,000,000 won for the remaining loans, except for the amount of KRW 20,000,000,000,000 paid to the Plaintiff by the Defendant.