부당이득금
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 reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, except where the defendant added or emphasized the argument that the court added or emphasized to this case, and as such, the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to that of the court of first instance. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of
2. Additional determination
A. On April 1, 2011, the Defendant asserted that, as the Plaintiff lent KRW 10,000,000 to the Plaintiff on or around April 1, 201, the Defendant had a loan claim against the Plaintiff in addition to the goods-price claim, and that the Plaintiff has a defense of offsetting the Plaintiff’s claim for return of unjust enrichment against the Defendant on an equal amount as the principal and interest claim, excluding the principal repaid on April 23, 2012 as the principal and interest claim, excluding the principal repaid on April 23, 2012.
B. As long as the authenticity of a disposition document by relevant legal principles is recognized, the court shall recognize the existence and content of the declaration of intent in accordance with the content of the document unless there is any reflective evidence, and shall not reject it without reasonable explanation. However, even if a disposition document is a document, if there is an express or implied agreement different from the content of the document, facts different from the content of the statement may be recognized. In interpreting the legal act of the originator, the court may determine it free and free as evidence to the extent that it does not contravene the empirical and logical rules.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Da45400 Decided December 21, 2006). C.
Judgment
Of them, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2 and Eul evidence Nos. 2 through 5 are used as evidence as shown in the above argument by the defendant. Among them, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 is a letter of loan with the purport that the plaintiff shall pay 10,000,000 won to April 30, 2012, and the purport that the plaintiff shall borrow 10,000 won to the interest of 3% per month, which is a disposition for money borrowed by the plaintiff. On the other hand, the plaintiff is a letter of loan with the content of 14,00,000 won to the defendant at the time of preparation of the above payment note and loan certificate.