beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
Judgment of the first instance.
Reasons
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, except where part of the judgment of the court of first instance is changed or added as stated in the following 2. Thus, it shall be cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Any part of the judgment of the court of first instance which is written or added; and
(a) 5 pages 4, 5 of the first instance judgment “609,740,09 Won” shall be deemed “609,740,099,” and 5 pages 21 of the first instance judgment “5-5 of the evidence No. 2 of the first instance judgment” shall be deemed “6 of the evidence No. 2 of the first instance judgment”;
(b) Chapter 6, Chapter 15, “In the first place, the Seoul High Court Decision 2013Na12206 and the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2014Gahap30273, which clearly distinguish the Defendant’s claims against the Plaintiff and the claims against D against the Plaintiff; and
C. On the 7th page 2, “In full view of the contents of the instant notarial deed and the factual relations as seen earlier,” added the following: “The content of the instant notarial deed admitted by each description of evidence and evidence Nos. 9 and 14 as seen earlier in the foregoing legal doctrine and the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 45,00,000 from H to June 24, 2010, and the Plaintiff agreed to pay KRW 150,000,000 including interest, until January 5, 2013.” While borrowing KRW 842,317,50,000 from D, the Plaintiff agreed to repay KRW 842,317,50 on July 1, 2010 and prepared the notarial deed.”
Part 7 21 "Reduction.........." added to "the Plaintiff, while preparing a notarial deed by borrowing money from H and D, separately determines interest other than interest or delay damages included in the leased principal on the notarial deed."
E. Following the 8th page 1, the plaintiff asserts that "the plaintiff is unjust by a welfare agreement to pay interest again on the interest included in the principal and interest of the loan, if it recognizes damages for delay by the rate of 20% per annum after the due date for reimbursement.
l.p. g., p.