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 reasoning of the court's explanation of this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the court of first instance has written the judgment as follows. Thus, it shall accept it in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
[Supplementary Rule] On the end of the 8th page 2, the phrase “the instant loan” (hereinafter “instant loan”), the word “the instant collateral security” at the end of the 11th century, and the phrase “No. 13” after the words “No. 5” in the 18th column.
In Part 2, "the plaintiff" in Part 9 is "C", "this decision" in Part 3 is "the first instance judgment", and "the plaintiff" in Part 11 is "the first instance judgment", respectively.
Part 3, Chapters 14 through 18 shall be advanced as follows.
Next, even if the Defendant borrowed the instant loan from C, on April 18, 2012, the Defendant asserts that F paid KRW 112,500,000 to C by depositing the instant loan in the G account in the name of C, and that the said money included the money in the name of repayment for the instant loan, and thus, the Defendant had already repaid the instant loan to C through F prior to the Plaintiff’s transfer of the instant loan claim.
In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement No. 1 of the evidence No. 1, it is recognized that the fact that the KRW 112.5 million was deposited in the account under the name of F H on April 18, 2012 in the G account of H on April 18, 2012.
However, in light of the following circumstances recognized by the evidence mentioned above and the statements mentioned in Gap evidence Nos. 6, 8, 9, 14, and 16 (including additional numbers) and the overall purport of pleadings, it is not sufficient to acknowledge the fact that the defendant repaid the loan of this case to Eul on April 18, 2012 by the witness F of the first instance trial alone, and there is no other evidence to support it. Thus, the defendant's assertion is without merit.
(1)