대여금
1. The plaintiff's appeal, the main claim extended in the trial and the additional conjunctive claim are all dismissed.
2...
1. In full view of the purport of the argument in Gap evidence No. 1, the fact that the defendant issued and delivered to the plaintiff a promissory note with a face value of KRW 15,00,000,00 for the defendant and the issue date of February 14, 200 (as to the part above, the number of KRW 7,8, and 9 is calculated simultaneously, and it is difficult to distinguish either of them is the first written, or into the face). On October 30, 2008, the due date is October 30, 2008.
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The Plaintiff’s primary claim (1) ① on February 14, 2007, the Plaintiff adjusted the amount of KRW 15 million loaned to the Defendant several times by the time around that time with the Defendant, and received the Promissory Notes as collateral. ② On June 11, 2008, the Plaintiff leased KRW 20 million to the Defendant’s Joint sureties living together with the Defendant at KRW 1,00,000,000 monthly interest, and thereafter, paid KRW 17,000,000,000 to the Defendant’s KRW 15,000,000,000 and KRW 15,000,000,000,000 and KRW 1,5,000,000,000,000 and KRW 1,5,000,000,000,000,000,000 in the instant Promissory Notes and KRW 1,70,000,00.
The Plaintiff received only KRW 15 million from the Defendant on March 5, 2010, and the Defendant received only KRW 15 million.