beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, KRW 128,03,710 against the Plaintiff and its related thereto from November 4, 2015 to April 26, 2017.
Reasons
1. Determination on loan 9,1270,000 won
A. In light of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence No. 1, Gap evidence No. 2-1, No. 2-3, and evidence No. 9-4 as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff extended the purport of the whole pleadings to the defendant on September 3, 2009, KRW 63.2 million on September 30, 2009, KRW 26 million on September 30, 2009, and KRW 5 million on September 5, 2013, and the plaintiff paid KRW 3 million from the defendant.
Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the sum of KRW 9,1270,000 (i.e., KRW 63,270,000 KRW 26 million) and damages for delay.
B. The defendant's assertion that the above 6,3270,00 won of a notarial deed (Evidence A 1) as to the above 6,3270,00 won was prepared by the plaintiff's intimidation and coercion. However, since there is no evidence to acknowledge this, the defendant's assertion
The defendant, upon the plaintiff's assaulting the defendant and being sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for six months on June 10, 2010 by the Chuncheon District Court Decision 2010Ra331 Decided June 10, 201, sentenced the defendant to a statutory detention, the defendant stated that the defendant "on the part of the defendant's testimony, the defendant would be free from the obligation under the notarial Deed (Evidence A No. 1) or the statement of payment (Evidence A. 2-1), and accordingly, the defendant appeared in the above court on September 8, 2010 as a witness and testified favorable to the plaintiff, so the defendant's above 63.27 million won and the 26.6 million won loan obligation against the plaintiff were exempted. However, since there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff made the above remarks to the defendant, the above argument by the defendant is groundless
The defendant asserts that out of the above five million won loan loan, the plaintiff paid the remainder of two million won to the person who was paid the loan, but there is no evidence to acknowledge this. Thus, the defendant's assertion is without merit.
2. Determination as to loans or indemnities of KRW 12 million
A. Judgment on the cause of the claim 1) The defendant is the defendant's words.