beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. The reasons for the court's explanation of this case are as follows, except for the addition of the judgment of the plaintiff's argument in the trial of the court of first instance (Provided, That the judgment of the main claim is excluded) and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act is cited as it is by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Additional determination
A. First of all, the Plaintiff claimed that, in addition to the Plaintiff’s loan to the Defendant recognized in the first instance trial, the loan of KRW 20 million on October 16, 1997, and KRW 24 million on March 28, 2000 was lent to the Defendant. The loan of KRW 6 million on March 27, 200 is KRW 15 million, not KRW 6 million, and the loan of KRW 5 million on June 28, 2006 is KRW 28 million, not KRW 5 million.
The statements in Gap evidence 3-5, Gap evidence 3-5, Gap evidence 6, 7-7, and Gap evidence 7-2 through 5 are not sufficient to acknowledge the above alleged facts, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it (the testimony of the party witness E is difficult to believe it as it is in light of the relation with the above witness). The plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.
B. The judgment as to the claim on damages for delay also held that the Plaintiff has continuously repaid the loan to the Plaintiff from around October 24, 2001 to around 2002, and that on October 24, 2001, the Plaintiff would have liquidated all the disputes within one month while borrowing KRW 180 million from the Plaintiff, and on October 24, 2006, the Plaintiff had urged the Plaintiff to pay the loan amount of KRW 16,264,000,000,000. In light of the fact that on October 24, 2006, the maximum debt amount was set at KRW 100,000,000,000,000 from around October 24, 2001, when at least two months have passed from October 24, 2001. Thus, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff had demanded the Plaintiff to pay all the debt to the Plaintiff at least around October 24, 2006.