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. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since it is the same as the stated in the first instance court’s reasoning, except for the parts which are dismissed or added as stated in paragraph (2) below.
2. Parts to be removed or added;
(a) add or dismiss the grounds for the judgment of the first instance court to “27.9%,” in Part V of the judgment of the first instance court, “27.9%,” and “27.9%,”
The following shall be added to the sixthth sentence of the first instance court:
F. As a result of the investigation into the Defendant, the Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Defendant in relation to each of the instant loans with the Seoul Central District Prosecutor’s Office in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Articles 65537 and 65537) (Article 65 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes).
Part 6 of the judgment of the court of first instance is referred to in Part 6 of the judgment of the court of first instance as "No. 6 and No. 7".
In Part 11, "Internet shopping" in Part 20 shall be deleted from the judgment of the first instance.
Part 14 of the decision of the first instance court is "from 5".
Part 15 of the judgment of the first instance court is "for the operator" in Part 2 of the judgment of the second instance as "the fact that the operator or the sale has been unrefilled."
The following shall be added to Chapter 10 on the 16th sentence of the first instance court.
The statement in Gap evidence No. 14 was recorded with the plaintiff's lending business operator and T, and according to this, T was aware that T was unable to obtain a loan from the plaintiff's lending business operator in excess of 1.6 billion won if the purchase price was 2 billion won, and it was believed that T was to prepare and submit a sales contract again. However, the transfer price under the above asset transfer contract is false or the defendant was aware of such fact.