beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.
Reasons
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this part of the basic facts is as follows: the witness of the first instance court No. 4 of the judgment of the first instance is the witness of the third instance court; the part of the third to third to 16 of the judgment “(d)” of the third to 13 of the judgment is the same as the part corresponding to the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the dismissal as in the part “.......”
A person shall be appointed.
D. On May 4, 2009, when the Plaintiff paid KRW 90 million to the Defendant Company in the name of E, the Plaintiff was issued and delivered a loan certificate (hereinafter “the instant loan certificate”) with the content that the Plaintiff would have to receive KRW 300,000 each day from July 1, 2009 to E in the name of E, and paid KRW 20 million to the Defendant Company in the name of E on June 10, 2010.
A person shall be appointed.
2. Determination on the claim for a loan of KRW 10 million
A. The plaintiff asserts that the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay 100,017,000 won, and damages for delay, since the plaintiff lent 100,000 million won to the defendants and set interest at 0.5% per month.
Accordingly, the Defendants asserted to the effect that the above KRW 110 million was paid to the Defendant Company as the actual owner of the money to be borne by the Defendant Company as a result of a lawsuit seeking invalidation of dismissal of the employees affiliated with D, and that the said money was not a interest agreement on the said money, and that 300,000 won that was paid every day in the form of repayment of the borrowed money is an agreement amount of KRW 300,000 per day that was to be paid in return for autonomous management, and that the said money was already paid in full even if borrowed.
B. Determination 1) In light of the following circumstances, the Plaintiff’s 10 million won paid should be borne by the Plaintiff in light of the following: (a) evidence Nos. 2 and 10, evidence Nos. 4-1 through 3, 5, 6, and evidence Nos. 8-1 through 11, and the overall purport of the pleadings.