beta
Text
1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).
purport, purport, and.
Reasons
1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are the same as the entry of the first instance court's decision, except where the part of the first instance court's decision is used or added as follows. Thus, the court's explanation as it is is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Any part which is written or added by the court of first instance; and
A. On May 9, 2009, the term " May 19, 2009" of the first instance judgment No. 3, 2009, as stated above. (b) The amount of the principal of the loan and the interest rate (1) the Plaintiff’s assertion (a) the Plaintiff’s existing loan debt amount was calculated at KRW 96,00,000 at the Defendant’s request, and the actual loan debt amount was at KRW 80,395,00,000, and the interest rate was later set at KRW 80,395,000 as stated by the Defendant, and the Defendant agreed that the interest rate was later set at KRW 80,395,00.
(B) The Defendant’s assertion was not prepared to settle the previous loan obligations, but was prepared by separately lending KRW 96,00,000 to the Plaintiff, and the actual interest rate is 2% per month.
(2) The meaning of the instant loan certificate and the Defendant prepared the instant loan certificate with the maturity of KRW 96,00,000 on March 20, 201 and KRW 1.57% on interest, while engaging in money transactions several times from February 2008.
The following circumstances, which are acknowledged as adding the whole purport of arguments to the statements in Gap evidence 2, 4, and 5, i.e., ① the plaintiff lent money from the defendant several times without preparing a loan certificate, etc. from February 2008 to May 2009; ② the plaintiff borrowed money equivalent to KRW 154,550,000 in total from February 2, 2008 to April 2009; and on April 28, 2009, the plaintiff borrowed money equivalent to KRW 154,550,000 from the defendant.