beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
purport.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the following "2. Additional Judgment" as to the assertion added by the defendant in this court, and thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with
2. In addition, even if the transfer registration of ownership in this case was not made in accord and satisfaction, the Defendant: (a) set up each of the instant collateral against the Defendant at the interest rate of 2.5% on September 19, 198; (b) on March 15, 1993, at the interest rate of 5% on March 15, 1993; (c) on April 24, 1993, at the interest rate of 1.2% on April 1993; and (d) on April 19, 1994, at the interest rate of 2.5% on April 19, 1994; and (d) set up each of the instant collateral against the Defendant as a collateral, each of the instant collateral against the Defendant, which constitutes the waiver of the obligation, which is the cause for interruption of extinctive prescription period, or waiver of the prescription interest (in the case of the second collateral, since the extinctive prescription period has already expired as of the date of the establishment of the said collateral, the Plaintiff’s claim amount set off.
First, as long as the establishment of a disposal document is recognized as authentic, the court should recognize the existence and content of the declaration of intent in accordance with the language and text stated in the disposal document unless there is any clear and acceptable reflective evidence that denies the contents of the statement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2018Da275727, Feb. 14, 2019); and according to the evidence Nos. 3, 4, and 8, the defendant lent the document to the plaintiff at an interest rate of 2.5% per month without fixing the maturity date; 5 million won per March 15, 1993; and 60,000 won per April 24, 1993 as interest rate of 60,000 won per April 15, 1993; and 500,000 won per April 24, 1993 as evidence submitted by the defendant to the plaintiff.