beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal and the defendant's incidental appeal are all dismissed.
2. Costs arising from an appeal and an incidental appeal shall be respectively.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: (a) the court of first instance cited the “208 Other Claim 12958” of each share of the judgment of the court of first instance as “208 Other Claim 12958; and (b) the Plaintiff added “2. additional determination” as to the assertion that the Plaintiff added to this court is identical to the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance; and (c) thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure
2. Additional determination
A. The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff’s claim should be accepted in entirety, since not only the claim based on the judgment in the Seoul Southern District Court case No. 2007Kadan103622, but also the above claim and all the claims based on the protocol of conciliation in the Seoul Southern District Court No. 2007Kadan103615 were filed for the interruption of extinctive prescription.
In full view of all the statements and arguments, Gap evidence Nos. 7, 9, and 10, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant for the payment of loans of KRW 30,00,000 with Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2007Da103615, and damages for delay thereof. However, in full view of the respective statements and arguments as to Gap evidence Nos. 7, 9, and Eul evidence Nos. 2, and the whole purport of the arguments in the above loan case, the defendant shall pay the plaintiff 19,00,000 won until September 30, 2008. If the defendant fails to pay the above money by the above payment date, the defendant shall pay damages for delay calculated by adding 20% per annum to the amount unpaid from the date following the payment date until the date of full payment. The remaining claims of the plaintiff shall be waived, and the plaintiff shall be accepted from the Seoul Southern District Court with the loans No. 2015, May 17, 2011.
Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.
B. The Plaintiff is obligated to pay C the borrowed amount of KRW 30,000.