beta
Text
The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff’s appeal is dismissed.
Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).
purport, purport, and.
Reasons
1. The counterclaim shall be deemed to be simultaneously filed;
A. On February 5, 2007, the Defendant agreed to pay interest of KRW 200,000 to the Plaintiff from February 15, 2008 until October 15, 2008, with the amount of KRW 20,000,000,000 borrowed as interest-free interest, as the preserved claim, to the Plaintiff’s withdrawal of the provisional attachment measure against Ilyang-gu, Busan Metropolitan City, the Defendant owned on October 24, 2007, and the Defendant on December 30, 2008, with the Plaintiff paid the above interest until March 30, 209, and the Defendant agreed to pay the Plaintiff KRW 20,00 per month as interest from that time until December 31, 2018 (i.e., the purport of the entire pleadings, and the purport of the entire pleadings), barring any special circumstance, the Defendant shall return the amount of KRW 20,000 to the Plaintiff on December 30, 2008.
B. As to this, the Defendant: (a) lent a large amount of money to E, the Defendant’s mother; (b) on or around December 30, 2008, at the time of cancelling provisional attachment of the building owned by E, and (c) on or around December 30, 208, the Defendant agreed on the Defendant’s repayment of KRW 20 million to the Plaintiff on the wind that, without notifying the Defendant of the said circumstances, E’s obligation to pay to the Plaintiff was extinguished; (b) and (c) on the premise that such repayment agreement should be revoked due to the Plaintiff’s defective declaration of intent by deceiving the Defendant or using the Defendant’s poor circumstances; and (d) on the premise that the Defendant’s return of KRW 21,101,200 paid to the Plaintiff as interest during the period from January 1, 2009 to December 31, 2019.
C. It is not sufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff, on the sole basis of the descriptions in the Dogdae, Eul 1 to Eul 16, was deceiving the Defendant or using the defendant's old situation, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit without any need to further examine whether to exercise the right of revocation or the scope of return of unjust enrichment.
According to the records, the defendant's housing funds are out of the funds.