물품대금
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 the instant case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following parts, including the judgment on the Defendant’s argument brought at the trial. Thus, this is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Parts used or added;
A. On the 3rd page of the judgment of the court of first instance, the term “decision to pay” in the 10th page 3, the term “(i.e., 16/31 x 2.2 million won)” in the 11th page 3, and the term “(i.e., 16/31 x 2.2 million won and less than 2.2 million won)” in the 4th page 6-7 column 4, and the term “the date of this decision” in the 6-7th page 4th page 6 to “the date of
B. The following arguments and judgments are added to the Defendant’s argument and judgment in the first instance judgment No. 4 to 5 pages 1).
In addition, the defendant asserts that the amount of KRW 5 million paid to the plaintiff on August 31, 2012 during the defendant's working period should be deducted from the above price." Further, considering the facts that the defendant becomes the business operator of the above hospital on August 16, 2012, and the whole purport of the statement and argument in subparagraph 7, the plaintiff can be recognized as having received KRW 5 million from the above hospital on August 31, 2012. However, according to the evidence, the plaintiff can be recognized as having not received the above amount of KRW 20,70,000 from the above hospital until July 2012. In light of this, it is difficult to deem that the above KRW 5 million was appropriated for the repayment of the above amount of KRW 20,70,000 which was already incurred before and after August 2012, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that it was appropriated for the repayment of the defendant's debt during the period of name lending.
C. From the end of the first instance judgment, the first instance judgment Nos. 4 to the end of the first instance judgment No. 5 was followed as follows.
In addition, it is recognized that C was aware of the fact that it was the actual business owner of the above hospital only with the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 10 and 11.