beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows: the witness of the first instance court's 5th trial's 14th trial's 'the witness of the first instance court'; the 30th 'the said judgment' of the 9th 'the 9th trial' is as the witness of the first instance court; and the 10th 'the first instance court's 'the judgment' is as follows, except for the addition of the judgment in the first instance court's 'the above 19th trial'.
2. Determination on the grounds for appeal
A. As examined in the above cited parts related to the quasi-loan contract for consumption as of February 29, 2016, the Plaintiff and the Defendant, on February 29, 2016, against the principal invested in the amount of KRW 120 million as of February 29, 2016, the Defendant’s quasi-loan contract for consumption purposeed to establish the quasi-loan for consumption, shall be deemed to be an obligation not under the quasi-loan for consumption. In the case of each of the existing obligations under the notarial deed of this case, the Defendant alleged that the first instance court erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to quasi-loan for consumption. However, the quasi-loan for consumption under Article 605 of the Civil Act is also established even if the former obligation is a loan for consumption (see Supreme Court Decision 94Da8440, May 13, 1994).
A. The defendant's assertion that the defendant's testimony or testimony of witness E of the court of first instance and witness E of the court of first instance are insufficient to reverse the factual recognition or judgment of this part of the above quoted part, and on different premise, the defendant's assertion that the amount of KRW 8.5 million or KRW 12 million, which the defendant paid to the plaintiff as of the last day of each month, shall not be subject to the Interest Limitation Act and shall not be appropriated for the principal. As seen in the above quoted part, the court of first instance paid the plaintiff to the defendant on February 29, 2016.