The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

The reasoning of the judgment of this court, which cited the judgment of the court of first instance, is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment as set forth in paragraph (2) below to the judgment on the argument that the defendant emphasizes or adds to the trial by the court of first instance, and thus, citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article

The 2nd page 12 shall be cut in the following manner:

The above guarantee contract has a special contract to the effect that "the Bank of Bankruptcy shall acquire and manage the fixed date transfer security at the time of the introduction of facilities in the non-party company's place of business," and there is a exemption clause as follows:

At the bottom of Part 3, the following "46,434,426 won" in Part 5 is added to "(i) 12,00,000 assembly operation units of 16,80,000 won for cooling or freezing storage facilities of 16,00,000 won, interest of 16,634,426 won for 16,00 won."

From the fourth side to the second side, the phrase “ alone” shall be written “only with the testimony of the witness D at the trial.”

The summary of the defendant's argument is that the plaintiff paid the principal and interest of this case to the defendant with knowledge of the fact that the plaintiff did not acquire the transfer security for the mechanical facilities of this case.

This constitutes a malicious debt repayment, and thus, the plaintiff cannot seek the return of it to the defendant.

Judgment

The non-payment of debt under Article 742 of the Civil Code is established only when the payer voluntarily pays the debt with knowledge that the debtor does not have an obligation.

Even in cases where repayment was enforced or it was inevitable to have been made in order to avoid de facto damage caused by the refusal of payment, and where repayment was made against his/her own free will, the payer does not lose his/her right to claim the return when there are circumstances to deem that the repayment was made against his/her own free will (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Da17917, Feb. 14, 1992; 95Da5222, Dec. 20, 1996). According to the evidence No. 10, according to the evidence No. 10, the Plaintiff around May 19, 2018.