청구이의
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
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 for the addition of the following determination as to the defendant's argument in the trial of the court of first instance. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420
【Additional Part] The defendant and the non-party company asserted that the non-party company is obligated to pay the balance of the subsidy and the collection amount to the defendant 15,459,750 won on October 28, 2013, regardless of the fact that the non-party company paid the plaintiff 14,021,50 won to the plaintiff on October 28, 2013. However, if the non-party company's statement of the whole purport of the argument (including the number of pages) was written evidence Nos. 7 through 9 (the previous transaction statement attached to the reference document submitted by the defendant on November 24, 2015), the non-party company's account that the non-party company paid the subsidy to the plaintiff is identical to the subsidy and payment account that the non-party company paid to the plaintiff (the account number : D) and the remitter also is a stock company that was the mutual name at the time of the defendant company, the above argument by the defendant is without merit.
In addition, the Defendant asserts that the Defendant’s total amount paid to the Plaintiff is KRW 49,342,730, and that the Plaintiff’s total amount repaid to the Defendant is KRW 21,000,000,000, and the Plaintiff still remains liable for the payment to the Defendant. However, the Defendant’s assertion that the amount of KRW 14,021,50, which was paid to the Plaintiff on October 28, 2013, deducted from the amount of KRW 21,00,000, which was already repaid by the Plaintiff from the amount of KRW 6,50,000, which was already repaid by the Defendant, deducted from the amount of KRW 6,50,00,00, which was already repaid by the Defendant. This is reasonable to deem that the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant’s obligation under the instant notarial deed had already been extinguished by itself.