대여금
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as follows, in addition to the reasoning for the defendant’s new argument in the court of first instance as to this case’s case’s. Thus, this is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. On October 28, 2011, the Defendant’s summary of the Defendant’s assertion, the Plaintiff, and the Defendant concluded an agreement with the Plaintiff that KRW 50 million that the Defendant borrowed from the Plaintiff on October 28, 201, which was the Defendant’s obligor C, shall be repaid to the Plaintiff, and on December 27, 2011, a letter of certification (Evidence B No. 4) was written.
In addition, on January 20, 2012, C obtained a loan of KRW 300 million from the Do community credit cooperative, and thereafter, C paid KRW 158 million out of the above loan to the Plaintiff. The payment of the above amount was made pursuant to the above agreement, and the above amount includes KRW 158 million from the Defendant’s loan to the Plaintiff.
Ultimately, since the defendant's debt has ceased to exist according to the above repayment, the plaintiff's claim is without merit.
B. In full view of the respective descriptions and arguments in the evidence No. 4-1, No. 4-2, and No. 3, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the evidence No. 4-1, No. 4-2, and No. 3, C took out a loan of KRW 300 million from the Korea Saemaul Bank on January 20, 2012, and paid KRW 158 million to the Plaintiff on January 26, 2012, and ② the Plaintiff paid KRW 62 million to the Defendant on January 27, 2012, although it is recognized that the Plaintiff paid the Defendant on January 27, 2012, the agreement was concluded between the Defendant, the Plaintiff, and the Defendant on October 28, 201 with the content that the Defendant would complete payment to the Plaintiff, a debtor of the Defendant.
It is insufficient to recognize the fact that C paid to the Plaintiff KRW 58 million, which was paid to the Plaintiff, KRW 50 million,000,000,000 to the Plaintiff, repaid the Defendant’s debt to the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.
Rather, the evidence Nos. 6-1, 2, 10, and 11 are written and all pleadings.