beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1. Purport of the claim.
Reasons
1. The defendant's grounds for appeal citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance, except where this court emphasizes or adds the following arguments, and it is deemed that the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance are legitimate when comprehensively considering the evidences submitted in the court of first instance along with such arguments.
Therefore, the reasoning for the statement in this case is as follows. The second 10th 10th 10 of the judgment of the court of first instance added "(hereinafter referred to as "the loans of this case") "(hereinafter referred to as "the loans of this case")", "the defendant of the third 3rd 3rd 16th 2017", and "each" in the front 3rd 8th 8th 8th 8th 8th 8th 10th 2th 10th 2th 2th 2th 2th 3th 3th 8th 8th 8th 8th 8th 8th 2th 3th 8th 100th 3th 10th 4th 10th 2th 3th 8th 8
2. Additional determination
A. The gist of the Defendant’s assertion 1) The Defendant paid KRW 6.7 million to the Plaintiff on January 16, 2017, not in the name of the loan but in the name of the Plaintiff, the amount of KRW 10,000,000,000, which the Defendant received from the Plaintiff, after deducting the interest on the unpaid amount of the loan and the interest on each of the instant loans (i.e., the Plaintiff’s assertion). (ii) The Defendant paid KRW 31,70,00 in total to the Plaintiff from November 19, 2016 to December 31, 2017, which ought to be naturally deducted from the principal, interest or delay damages recognized by the Defendant among the instant loans.
(2)(b).
(1) The court shall recognize the existence and content of the declaration of intent as stated in the reasoning of the judgment, unless there is any clear and acceptable evidence to deny the contents of the judgment, inasmuch as the document of disposition as the authenticity of the judgment on the assertion is recognized (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Da55456, Oct. 11, 1994).