대여금
Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked and revoked.
1. Summary of the parties' arguments;
A. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 1,880,90 in total, KRW 333,900 in cash loans and reflective expenses, etc. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 1,977,000, Feb. 3, 2000>
B. In relation to Defendant (the summary of the grounds of appeal)’s compulsory payment of insurance money, the Defendant’s insurance premium paid to the Plaintiff on behalf of the Plaintiff is not obligated to pay the insurance premium on account of the Plaintiff’s forced purchase of an insurance policy, even though the Defendant was in an economically difficult situation and was not under circumstances to buy an insurance policy. (ii) In relation to the amount of the insurance premium paid by the Plaintiff on behalf of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff paid the insurance premium of KRW 1,539,00 (=171,000 per month premium x 9 months) at the first instance court, but the Defendant’s insurance premium paid by the Plaintiff on behalf of the Plaintiff was paid on account of the Defendant’s direct payment for two months (i.e., KRW 1,197,00 (i., monthly insurance premium of KRW 171,000) x seven months).
3. In relation to the claim for other expenses, the relationship between the non-party C, who is the plaintiff's seat, resided in the defendant's office, and the plaintiff delivered half, etc. to the defendant's office, and there was no fact that the defendant borrowed other expenses from the plaintiff.
2. Determination:
A. According to the following circumstances, as to the assertion of coercion to pay the insurance proceeds, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have forced the Defendant to pay the insurance proceeds, and there is no evidence to prove otherwise. The following circumstances are as follows: (a) the Defendant directly pays the insurance proceeds for two months after the purchase of the insurance policy; and (b) the Defendant has maintained the insurance proceeds for a considerable period after the purchase of the insurance contract under his/her own name even if it could have arbitrarily terminated the insurance contract; and (c) there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.
This part of the defendant's argument is without merit.
(b)the amount of the insurance money to be paid in lieu.