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
1..
Reasons
1. The scope of this court’s adjudication at the first instance court, along with a claim for refund of KRW 10,000,000,000 for the amount of consolation money due to a tort, the Plaintiff also sought payment of KRW 5,00,000 for the amount of consolation money due to the tort. The first instance court rendered a judgment on the entire failure of the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff filed an appeal only as to the above portion among them, so only
2. On February 15, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that: (a) on February 15, 2014, the Defendant had the Defendant keep KRW 10,000,000 in custody on the instant real estate and miscellaneous land; (b) had the Defendant obtain a considerable additional loan out of KRW 96,00,000,00 for the instant real estate and miscellaneous land owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant real estate”) and KRW 5,62,00,000 for the instant land (hereinafter “the instant miscellaneous land”); and (c) had the Defendant obtain a considerable amount of loan out of KRW 205,00,00 for the instant land and miscellaneous land owned by the Defendant; and (d) did not comply with the terms and conditions of the instant building and miscellaneous land as collateral; and (e) did not have concluded a sales contract on the instant real estate and miscellaneous land after the construction of the instant land.
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to return the above custody money to the plaintiff.
3. On the other hand, as shown in the plaintiff's assertion, Gap evidence No. 4 and Eul evidence No. 2, which are a disposal document that is a witness of the first instance trial, are alleged to have forged Gap evidence No. 2 (a sales contract as to the real estate and miscellaneous land of this case), but if the plaintiff recognized the above sales contract as his seal, the authenticity of the above sales contract and the authenticity of the entire sales contract are presumed to have been established, and the testimony of Gap evidence No. 1, 3, 4, and 5 as well as witness of the first instance trial, are merely based on the statements No. 1, 2, and 3 as well as the testimony of Eul evidence No. 1, 2, and 1 as well as witness of the first instance trial.