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. According to Gap evidence No. 1, appraiser C’s appraisal result, and the whole purport of the pleadings as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff made a confirmation letter of security deposit from the defendant, who was the branch of the defendant around February 16, 2004, stating that the plaintiff lent KRW 19 million (hereinafter “the loan in this case”) to the defendant upon request from the defendant, who was the branch of the defendant for the offer of KRW 401 as security, and that "the plaintiff received KRW 19 million from the plaintiff as security deposit for the above DDD operation 401, and the defendant prepared a confirmation letter of security deposit for lease deposit from the plaintiff."
Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the above loan of KRW 19 million and damages for delay.
2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. The Defendant asserts that the settlement of the instant loan was completed, that the Plaintiff and the Defendant settled all of the monetary relations, including the instant loan, through separate lawsuit (Seoul District Court Decision 2012Da38930, 2012Na25324).
According to each of the statements and arguments in Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3, 5, and 34 (including a branch number), the plaintiff loaned KRW 50 million to the defendant on December 28, 2006. After that, the plaintiff and the defendant entered into a partnership agreement on the construction of a studio building in Daegu-gu E ground and maintained the partnership relationship on January 12, 2007, and the defendant paid KRW 150 million to the plaintiff on June 22, 2011, and agreed to liquidate the partnership relationship. The plaintiff asserted that "the defendant paid KRW 65 million out of the above settlement amount and failed to pay the remainder," and that on July 25, 2012, the plaintiff argued that "the defendant did not pay the remainder," and that on July 25, 2007, the court of appeal agreed with the defendant 201Kagu District Court as the plaintiff's 2,2003,200.25 million.