1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Basic facts

A. On September 1, 2004, the Defendant entered into a contract with C and D to purchase 260 million won for Yangsan City E and K (hereinafter “the instant forest”) from C and D (hereinafter “the instant contract”). Accordingly, on September 10, 2004, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant forest.

B. The instant sales contract provides that “The site at the lower end of the drawing of the forest land of this case (7m) shall be jointly developed and used, and the seller shall perform civil construction works (road construction works).”

(The contract of this case states that the above civil engineering works are "Buyer", but it is not a dispute between the parties that it is a clerical error of "seller".

On September 8, 2004, the Defendant borrowed KRW 50 million from the Plaintiff at the time of purchasing the forest land of this case in the name of the Defendant, and there is a cash custody certificate (hereinafter “the cash custody certificate of this case”) dated September 8, 2009 to the effect that “in selling the forest of this case, the Plaintiff shall repay the same first priority to the Plaintiff” (hereinafter “the cash custody certificate of this case”).

(A) No. 1, d.

Around June 2010, the Defendant paid KRW 18 million to the Plaintiff.

E. On September 3, 2013, the Defendant sold the instant forest to F and G on September 3, 2013, and completed the registration of ownership transfer concerning the instant forest by each of the aforementioned buyers on October 31, 2013.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. On September 2004, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff lent KRW 50 million, which is part of the sales price of the instant sales contract, to the Defendant.

Since the Plaintiff received KRW 18 million from the Defendant around June 2010, the Defendant should pay the remainder loans of KRW 32 million to the Plaintiff and delay damages.

B. The defendant's assertion did not have borrowed KRW 50 million from the plaintiff.

Defendant.