양수금
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
The reasoning of the judgment of this court cited in the judgment of the first instance is as follows. Except for the addition of the judgment on the assertion that the Plaintiff emphasizes or added in the trial, the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is as follows, and such judgment is cited as it includes summary language pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Part 3 of the second page "........................... The loan certificate (No. 2) drafted on September 8, 201, stated the interest rate as "part of the original" (1.5% per month), and it appears that the interest rate has been increased by drawing up the above loan certificate]."
Part 3, "not later than June 2007" in Part 21 shall be applied to "not later than June 2008".
Part 4, "No. 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 14, and 21 of A shall be written with "No. 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 14, 21 of A, and No. 1 of Evidence No. 1" in Part 7 of Section 4.
Part 4, Paragraph 13, "each entry in Section 2" shall be written with "each entry in Section 2 and 3".
Part 4, "300 million won" in Part 17 shall be "50 million won", and " November 2, 2006" shall be written " November 6, 2006", respectively.
Part 6, "W" of paragraphs 1 through 2 shall be added to "C".
The Defendants requested the Plaintiff on September 26, 2006 and borrowed the amount of KRW 800 million.
The above KRW 800 million was delivered to the Defendants through F at G Bank located in V, which divided the above KRW 300 million, KRW 300 million, and KRW 200 million into three prefabricated clothes, and thus, the above KRW 800 million was clear, and even if so determined, the Defendants did not have any legal ground for holding the above KRW 80 million, so they should return the above KRW 80 million to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment.
The judgment of the court of first instance omitted the judgment as to whether the above KRW 80 million was delivered to the defendants, and the above KRW 800 million was a loan or unjust enrichment, and the court of first instance did not exercise the right of explanation as to whether the above KRW 800 million was a loan or unjust enrichment, and trust the testimony of witness F of the court of