2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

A. The Plaintiff and C are merchants engaged in the wholesale business of fishery products in the D market, and the Plaintiff lent KRW 50,000,000 to C.

B. The Defendant, as C’s children, borrowed KRW 50,000,000 on February 18, 2012, and issued to the Plaintiff a certificate of borrowing.

C. C was admitted to the successful bidder who was the Plaintiff’s share, but around 2014, upon receiving the advance payment, C disposed of KRW 10,000,000 out of the advance payment as set off against the said loan obligation.

C Other ASEAN, on August 17, 2015, remitted KRW 20,000,000 to the Plaintiff’s fraudulent account of F.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3, Eul evidence 2, 3, and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant, on February 18, 2012, prepared a certificate of borrowing KRW 50,000,000 and delivered it to the Plaintiff, and the Defendant assumed the obligation of borrowing KRW 50,000,00,000, which was collected by the Plaintiff, to the Plaintiff. 2) There is no evidence to acknowledge that there was an agreement on the repayment period of the above loan, and therefore, pursuant to Article 603(2) of the Civil Act, there is no evidence to acknowledge that there was an agreement on the repayment period of the loan, the Defendant shall be liable for the said loan only after a considerable period has elapsed from the time when

As seen earlier, in light of that C’s settlement of KRW 10,00,000, out of the total amount received by C at around 2014, and that E, a child of C, repaid KRW 20,00,00 on August 17, 2015, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff notified the Defendant or C of the performance of the above obligation several times prior to the aforementioned offset disposition or repayment, and at least, the Defendant had delayed payment until the above repayment date.

3. Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is either KRW 20,000,000, excluding the remainder of KRW 30,000,000, which the Plaintiff had been paid out of the above loan amount of KRW 50,000, and thereafter the Plaintiff was paid.