대여금
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.
Purport of claim and appeal
1.
1. The reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows, except for the allegations that are emphasized by the plaintiffs in this court, and therefore, they are cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
(The grounds of appeal by the plaintiffs are not significantly different from the allegations in the first instance court, and according to the evidence submitted, the fact-finding and judgment of the first instance court are justifiable). 2.
A. On the 5th day of the judgment of the court of first instance on the cause of the claim, the 10th day of the judgment is as follows.
As long as the establishment of a disposition document is recognized as authentic, the court shall recognize the existence and content of the expression of intent in accordance with the language and text stated in the disposition document, unless there is any clear and acceptable counter-proof that the content of the disposition document is denied (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Da256732, Jun. 9, 2016). In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings in each of the evidence Nos. 5 and 6, the defendant and the plaintiff stated that "the defendant borrowed KRW 70,000,000 from the plaintiff to the plaintiff as of April 12, 2011; and that "the defendant borrowed KRW 59,00,000 from the plaintiff to the plaintiff as of April 12, 201; and that "the defendant borrowed the plaintiff as of August 26, 2014; hereinafter referred to as "the fact that the defendant borrowed the plaintiff as of June 16, 2016."
As long as the authenticity of each of the loans in this case is recognized, it is reasonable to authorize the Plaintiffs and the Defendant to authorize the same relationship as the each of the loans in this case.
Although each of the instant lending certificates pertains to a part of various monetary transactions between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant, it is reasonable to view that each of the monetary transactions is a lending relationship between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant, since the nature of each of the monetary transactions is similar.
The plaintiffs agree to return the investment money on the basis that the defendant promised to return the principal received from the plaintiffs several times.