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
The first instance court.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. While running C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”), the Defendant traded “D” and the A-year gold transaction operated by the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff and the Defendant either delivered or exchanged each promissory note issued in the name of C and D to the other party for the payment of the Do gold price or its own financial circulation.
B. Each promissory note as indicated in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “instant promissory note”) is a promissory note issued by the Plaintiff and delivered to the Defendant, and the Plaintiff paid all of the instant promissory note.
C. C was disposed of on November 27, 1997 and closed on December 31, 1997, and D was disposed of on December 2, 1997.
The defendant (the representative director of the Co., Ltd.) shall settle the amount after deducting the amount of the Do gold at the time of the default as of November 27, 1997, and shall settle the amount after deducting the amount of the Do gold at the time of the default from October 26 to October 27, 1997.
Around May 17, 2013, the Plaintiff and the Defendant drafted a written confirmation (No. 2, hereinafter “instant confirmation”) with the following content as follows:
E. On June 28, 2013, the Defendant remitted KRW 1.5 million to the Plaintiff.
[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, 11, Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 4, Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 4, the result of the response of the order to submit financial transaction information to Busan Bank Co., Ltd. on September 4, 2015, the result of the response of the order to submit financial transaction information to us on November 25, 2015, the response result of the response to the head of Seosan Tax Office on February 11, 2016, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. The parties' assertion
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Promissory Notes were issued and delivered to the Defendant, and all of them were settled by the Plaintiff, but the Defendant did not pay each Promissory Notes as indicated in [Attachment 2] exchanged with the Promissory Notes (hereinafter “C-issued Promissory Notes”) and the Plaintiff settled the payment instead of the Promissory Notes. Therefore, the Defendant is liable to pay the amount equivalent
However, the defendant has a written confirmation of this case.