beta
Text
1.The part concerning the principal lawsuit in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be modified as follows:
The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim).
Reasons
1. Determination on the main claim
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff, the second father of the Plaintiff, lent a total of KRW 100 million around September 30, 2005 (hereinafter “loan”) and KRW 200 million around December 7, 2005 (hereinafter “loan”). Around February 16, 2007, the Plaintiff asserted that only KRW 50 million out of the above loan was paid, and sought payment of KRW 150 million in the remainder of the loan.
B. 1) First, in light of the following circumstances, it is insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff transferred KRW 100 million to the Defendant on September 30, 2005, even though the Plaintiff was aware of the fact that the Plaintiff transferred KRW 100 million to the Defendant on September 30, 2005, based on each of the evidence and the entire purport of the pleadings cited below, the above facts of recognition and the statement of No. 9 alone are insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff lent KRW 100 million to the Defendant on the above date, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise, the Plaintiff’s assertion in this part is without merit.) First, with respect to the loan portion (A) as to the loan portion (the Plaintiff’
2 The loan agreement (No. 3) is drawn up between the original and the defendant with respect to the loan made at a time that is not far away.
In addition, on May 8, 2017, the Plaintiff stated in the preparatory document that “the Plaintiff, around December 7, 2005, did not think that the Plaintiff would obtain additional KRW 100 million (loan) from the Defendant even at the time of lending the loan to the Defendant. On December 6, 2005, if the Plaintiff additionally borrowed KRW 100 million, not only KRW 100,000,000,000, which was first borrowed from shares, but also KRW 100,000,000,000, which was 100,000,000,000 won.” If there were circumstances, the Plaintiff stated that “a loan was lent to the Defendant,” and that “a loan was extended to KRW 20,00,000,000,000,000,000,00