beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in the instant case is that of the first instance judgment, except for an additional determination under paragraph (2) as to the assertion emphasized by the Defendant by filing an appeal, and thus, citing it as is by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act
(The grounds for appeal by the defendant are not significantly different from the allegations in the judgment of the court of first instance, and facts findings and judgments in the court of first instance are recognized as legitimate). 2. Additional determination
A. A. Around 2005, the Defendant, a summary of the Defendant’s claim for the repayment of the instant loan claim 1), lent KRW 40 million to the Defendant, upon receiving a mortgage establishment from the Plaintiff, who promoted a charnel project in the instant real estate (hereinafter “instant loan”).
(2) Since the Plaintiff decided to repay the instant loan with the profits accrued from the charnel business, the Plaintiff asserts that the period of repayment of the instant loan claims is the time after the establishment of a charnel business, i.e., the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances, i.e., the Defendant asserted that the period of repayment of the instant loan claims was not specified in the first instance court, and the Defendant asserted that the instant loan claims were extinguished due to the expiration of the extinctive prescription period in the first instance court, and that the period of repayment of the instant loan claims in the first instance court was asserted after the establishment of a charnel business after the lapse of the period of payment of the instant loan claims in the first instance court, and ii) the Defendant stated that the amount of the principal of the instant loan loaned to the Plaintiff was KRW 40 million,000,000,000,0000 won, but the Defendant was unable to memory the amount of the accurate principal of the loan, iii) the Defendant received half of a charnel certificate in lieu of the instant loan amount.