beta
Text
1. The part of the judgment of the first instance against the Plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to pay has been revoked.
The defendant.
Reasons
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is the same as the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the case that has been used for the same part as since then, thereby citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Parts to be dried;
가. 제1심 판결문 제3면 제9행 중 “23,890,000원”을 “24,340,000원”으로 고치고, 같은 면 하단의 [표]를 아래와 같이 고친다(순번 36에 2001. 12. 31. 송금액 450,000원을 추가함). [표] 순번 송금일자 송금액(원) 순번 송금일자 송금액(원) 1 2000. 8. 14. 350,000 23 2001. 7. 2. 500,000 2 2000. 9. 1. 150,000 24 2001. 7. 16. 450,000 3 2000. 9. 14. 500,000 25 2001. 7. 31. 450,000 4 2000. 9. 30. 450,000 26 2001. 8. 16. 450,000 5 2000. 10. 14. 500,000 27 2001. 9. 1. 450,000 6 2000. 10. 30. 450,000 28 2001. 9. 17. 450,000 7 2000. 11. 14. 500,000 29 2001. 10. 4. 350,000 8 2000. 11. 30. 450,000 30 2001. 10. 6. 100,000 9 2000. 12. 15. 470,000 31 2001. 10. 15. 450,000 10 2000. 12. 29. 450,000 32 2001. 11. 1. 450,000 11 2001. 1. 15. 450,000 33 2001. 11. 15. 450,000 12 2001. 1. 16. 50,000 34 2001. 11. 30. 450,000 13 2001. 2. 1. 450,000 35 2001. 12. 15. 450,000 14 2001. 2. 15. 500,000 36 2001. 12. 31. 450,000 15 2001. 2. 28. 450,000 37 2002. 1. 15. 450,000 16 2001. 3. 15. 500,000 38 2002. 1. 31. 450,000 17 2001. 4. 6. 450,000 39 2002. 2. 15. 450,000 18 2001. 4. 16. 500,000 40 2002. 2. 28. 450,000 19 2001. 4. 30. 450,000 41 2002. 3. 15. 450,000 20 2001. 5. 16. 500,000 42 2002. 4. 1. 450,000 21 2001. 5. 31. 450,000 43 2002. 4. 15. 450,000 22 2001. 6. 15. 450,000 44 2002. 4. 30. 5,820,000 합계 24,340,000
B. The part of the judgment of the defendant regarding the defendant's argument in the first instance court Nos. 10 to 16 shall be examined as follows.
In accordance with the statement in Eul evidence No. 2, the fact that the money was remitted from the defendant's her husband's account to the plaintiff's account on November 13, 2013 is recognized.
In this regard, the plaintiff remitted money to the defendant's wife I.