1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as to this case is that the court of first instance, as to this case, dismissed the “claim for Loan” at the last two pages of the judgment of the court of first instance as “a claim for agreed amount,” and cited this case in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for supplementing part of the contents as follows.

On March 22, 2016, the Defendant made an oral agreement to pay money to the Plaintiffs at the time of the preparation of a written rejection of payment with the Plaintiffs on March 22, 2016. The Defendant asserted that the time limit has not yet arrived since the lawsuit was not terminated.

In order to prove the existence of the above oral agreement, the defendant submitted evidence Nos. 5, 9 (Deficial Certificate) to prove that there was the above oral agreement.

However, the above evidence alone can only be recognized as having been discussed by the parties in a lawsuit between the defendant and the Nonghyup at the time of the preparation of a statement of payment, and it is insufficient to recognize that there was a separate oral agreement to determine the date of payment of each of the above agreements differently from September 30, 2016 or October 30, 2016, which stipulates the date of payment in the statement of payment, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Therefore, the above defense is without merit.

[On the other hand, the lawsuit between the defendant and the Agricultural Cooperatives (the Daejeon High Court 2015Na1145) was concluded and concluded on May 8, 2018). The defendant asserts that the claim for damages arising from the above tort is offset against the plaintiffs' agreed-upon claim, since the plaintiffs committed tort, such as the plaintiffs belonging to the old rice, or the combination of the old rice and the new rice, belonging to the defendant, and the combination of the old rice and the new rice, were supplied to the defendant.

However, the defendant must prove the plaintiffs' illegal acts.