beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
Reasons
1. The basic facts of the claim (1) The plaintiff (1978's birth, 1954's birth and 1954's birth) is the non-party E (1954's birth and 1954's birth), and the non-party F is the father of E
Defendant C (1954 birth, male) is the children of Defendant B (1928 birth, male) and Nonparty G is the grandchildren of Defendant C’s children.
(2) From August 27, 201, KRW 100,000 was transferred to the account in the name of G as of August 29, 201, KRW 340,000 to the account in the name of Nonparty H, ③ as of August 31, 201, KRW 300,000 to the account in the name of G; ④ as of May 21, 201, KRW 8.5 million was transferred to the account in the name of Defendant B; ⑤ as of June 26, 2012, KRW 8.5 million was transferred to the account in the name of Defendant B, respectively.
(The total amount of remittance is KRW 14 million) (3) June 26, 2012, as indicated on June 2012, 2012 (the date of preparation was indicated on May 20, 2012; however, the number 5 and 20 appears to have been modified to 6 and 26 out of them), Defendant B, joint borrower, Defendant C, and D, who borrowed and received KRW 15 million, hereinafter referred to as “the loan certificate of this case”).
(5) The loan certificate of this case does not state who is the lender, but the plaintiff is currently in possession of the loan certificate of this case. On the other hand, the loan certificate of this case was prepared on March 20, 201 that the plaintiff lent 12,500,000 won to F on March 20, 201, and the above loan certificate is accompanied by the F's certificate of personal seal impression issued as of June 26, 2012, which is after the date of borrowing. (5) The above fact is not in dispute between the parties, or can be acknowledged by the purport of Gap's certificate of 1 through 5, Eul's certificate of personal seal impression as of June 26, 2012 (including a serial number, and there is no evidence that interferes with this.
2. The Defendants filed the instant lawsuit for the instant lawsuit, since they actually acquired the loans from E for the purpose of trust in a lawsuit against the Defendants.