대여금
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
3. Paragraph 1 of the judgment of the court of first instance is applicable.
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the pertinent part is modified or added as follows. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Parts used or added;
A. Of the text of the judgment of the first instance, the first instance court: ① “A evidence No. 3” in the first instance judgment No. 7 is deemed to be “A evidence No. 3; ② “T” in the first instance judgment No. 56 shall be deemed to be “J”; ③ “T shall not be deemed to be a title trustee for the said merchants; and the title trustee who entered into a title trust agreement with the Defendant” in the fifth through 8 [I, J, and M shall not be deemed to be a title trustee who entered into a title trust agreement with the Defendant. However, the Defendant, a real estate seller, is deemed to have been entrusted with the name of the Defendant. However, even if the Defendant’s assertion was made by the Defendant, the J. 30 representative who is the purchaser of the first land, and M shall be deemed to have been entrusted with approximately 30 representative who is the permanent occupant of the second land, to approximately 30 representative, a permanent occupant of the second land; ② from 20, the witness and M shall be deemed to have been entrusted with the title No. 130 to 16.
B. Subsequent to the 5th page 5 of the first instance judgment, “Non-existent” was added to “(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 5, 6, and 13) the merchant testified to the effect that the Plaintiff, a spouse of J, was transferred the land 2” (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 5, 6, 13).
3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remainder is without merit.