beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
1. The reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows, and they are cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, given that the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court
2. The phrase “each entry of No. 8” in No. 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance No. 10 shall be deemed to read “each entry of No. 8 and No. 10 (including serial numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of all pleadings.”
The second part of the second part of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be from the second to the fourth part of the lower part of the 7th part of the 7th part "2015." to the lower part as follows.
Article 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Seoul Western District Court (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20105, Apr. 2, 2014; Presidential Decree No. 20100, Feb. 2, 2015; Presidential Decree No. 20135, Apr. 2, 2014; Presidential Decree No. 20135, Feb. 2, 2015; Presidential Decree No. 20135, Apr. 2, 2015; Presidential Decree No. 2020, Feb. 22, 2015; Presidential Decree No. 20220, Feb.
On the third side of the first instance judgment, the part of the first instance judgment from "the plaintiff," to "the 5th page," shall be as follows:
Before transferring KRW 50 million to the Plaintiff, C and the Defendant had already concluded and traded electric wire supply contract, ④ On April 10, 2015, the following day after the Plaintiff transferred KRW 50 million in the name of “B,” the Defendant supplied another electric wire to C at C upon C’s request and received a transaction confirmation. ⑤ The Plaintiff stated “A” on the deposit receipt of KRW 50 million that the Plaintiff was aware of the transfer of the said money. However, the remitter’s real name appears not to be separately indicated on the remitter’s remittance. Rather, considering that the above receipt contains the indication “B”, the Defendant who received the transfer of the money was considered to have deposited “B.”