1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The part concerning the claim for the confirmation of existence of an obligation among the lawsuits in this case shall be dismissed.

3. This.

Basic Facts

The court's explanation on this part is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

At the time when the Plaintiff received each of the instant loans from the Defendant at the time of the Plaintiff’s assertion on the cause of the Plaintiff’s claim, the Defendant agreed to extend the maturity if the Plaintiff did not delay interest on the respective loans. The Plaintiff believed the agreement and paid the interest on each of the instant loans.

However, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that it is impossible to extend the maturity of each of the instant loans to the Plaintiff and urged the Plaintiff to repay the principal and interest on the ground that the loans were overdue around July 8, 2014, and around November 29, 2014, for the second loans, the maturity of each of the instant loans were overdue.

As such, the Defendant’s failure to extend the maturity of each of the instant loans is a breach of contract.

The Plaintiff deposited each of the instant loans on the premise that the maturity extension of each of the instant loans was treated normally, thereby extinguishing all the principal and interest obligations of the instant loans. As such, there is no debt of each of the instant loans as of the closing date of pleadings in the instant case.

Nevertheless, the Defendant asserts that the remaining balance of the principal and interest of each of the instant loans exists, and thus, sought confirmation of the non-existence of obligations arising from each of the instant loans.

In addition, the defendant unilaterally refused to extend the maturity period as above is a breach of contract, and thus, the interest rate for delay cannot be applied. The plaintiff deposited 1 and deposited 2 times under the premise that the maturity is extended normally. Nevertheless, the defendant terminated all of the principal and interest of interest by making a deposit once and 2 times. Nonetheless, the defendant deemed that each of the loans of this case was overdue and applied the interest rate for delay and transferred 21,28,506 won from the plaintiff's account to 21,288,506 won, and 3 deposit money 4