beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited this case is as follows, except for adding the judgment of the court of first instance as to the assertion that the plaintiff is liable to pay in the court of first instance as the grounds for appeal, and thus, it is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main
2. Determination on the grounds for appeal
A. The Plaintiff asserts to the same effect as in the first instance trial, that the Plaintiff paid to the Defendant KRW 200,000 ( KRW 180,000,000 on June 28, 2012, and KRW 20,000,000 on July 10, 2012) with the investment money under the instant joint venture agreement, and that the Plaintiff loaned KRW 158,20,000 in total from July 19, 2012 to March 4, 2013.
B. However, in addition to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated at the court of first instance and the first instance, i.e., the Plaintiff’s obligation to collateral security on the above officetels under the sales contract with respect to JtelK and L, and F (the actual operator of the Defendant) is obligated to pay the Plaintiff an investment amount of KRW 180 million, which the Plaintiff paid to the Defendant is merely a repayment of the above collateral security obligation. However, in the first instance court, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff’s assertion regarding the contents of the above officetel sales contract (the total purchase amount of KRW 685 million is separate from value-added tax), the obligation to return the deposit amount to the person having chonsegwon (the total purchase amount of KRW 140 million is KRW 180 million), and the obligation to pay the collateral security (G association KRW 180 million, KRW 170 million,000,000) and the Plaintiff’s assertion that the above registration of ownership transfer was difficult to accept.