beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
purport:
Reasons
Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 5, the plaintiff loaned KRW 100,000,000 to the defendant on August 31, 2014, KRW 600,000, and KRW 200,000 on October 20, 2014, respectively, and the fact that the exchange rate (based on the transaction rate) as of May 12, 2016, as of May 12, 2016, as of May 12, 2016, constitutes the fact that the plaintiff received KRW 20,000,00 from the defendant on May 9, 2015, is the person who has received reimbursement from the defendant on or around May 9, 2015.
The plaintiff asserts that the defendant agreed to pay the above KRW 600,000 to the defendant when withdrawing the above KRW 600,000 from ATM, but there is no evidence to acknowledge this. Therefore, the above assertion is without merit.
Although the defendant alleged that he paid 160,000 won to the plaintiff additionally, it is not sufficient to recognize it only by the statement of Eul No. 2, and there is no other evidence to recognize it, the above argument is without merit.
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 1,671,720 won (10,00N x 1,071.72/100) and damages for delay calculated at each rate of 15% per annum under the Civil Act from May 13, 2015 to November 18, 2015, the date following the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, which is the day when the defendant delivered the copy of the complaint of this case, to the day when the judgment of the first instance is rendered, to the day when the defendant delivered the judgment of first instance, and to pay to the plaintiff damages for delay calculated at each rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the above scope of recognition and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair, but the judgment of the court of first instance cannot be modified disadvantageous to the defendant under the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration in this case where only the defendant appealed. Thus, only the defendant's appeal shall be dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.