beta
Text
1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.
Purport of claim and appeal
1.
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff asserted as to the cause of the instant claim, upon the request of the Defendants, lent KRW 150,000,000 to the Defendants, in total, six times from January 18, 2013 to August 6, 2013.
2. The facts found are factually identical to the facts found in the judgment of the court of first instance, but their expressions were different.
The evidence Nos. 1-6, 2, 3, 2, and 3 of the Evidence Nos. 1-6, was confirmed at the date of the second pleading of the court below, and at the court, at the request of the Defendants to verify the original.
The statements in the evidence Nos. 12, 20, 21, and 31 (the defendant alleged that the plaintiff was forged, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, according to the witness F of the first instance trial, the defendant C, at his office on August 31, 2013, directly prepared a deposit contract with his own personal computer and delivered it to F. Meanwhile, according to the evidence No. 31, the defendant B filed a complaint with the plaintiff and F on suspicion of "the plaintiff and F forged the above deposit contract," but the prosecutor of the Seoul Dong District Prosecutors' Office of Seoul Dong District Prosecutors' Office stated on January 13, 2017, the following facts can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the whole testimony of the witness witness of the first instance trial and the purport of the testimony of the witness F of the court of first instance.
The Plaintiff, under the trade name of “D,” runs the manufacturing and wholesale business of clothing, and the Defendants were married and divorced on January 2013. However, the Defendants asserted that they were divorced (the preparatory document dated December 21, 2015), but did not submit data on this.
The "E" (However, business registration was made in the name of the defendant B) carries on the clothing manufacturing industry.
B. Since 2009, the Defendants manufactured and supplied clothing products to the Plaintiff.
C. Defendant C, through F, having been in charge of D’s external business operations on January 2013, money to be used by the Plaintiff for the study cost of the Plaintiff.