beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
1. The assertion and judgment
A. On April 20, 201, the Plaintiff lent KRW 300,000,00 to the Defendant on or around May 20, 2011, and was not paid KRW 90,30,000 among which the Plaintiff was unable to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 10,30,000. While the Defendant asserts that he is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 90,30,000 and the amount for delay delay, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff is liable to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 90,30,00 and the amount for delay delay. However, according to the appraisal result of the first instance trial appraiser L, the Plaintiff made a defense of forgery (the Defendant’s seal affixed on the power of attorney is not the Defendant’s seal imprint, but the Defendant’s seal imprint is recognized as identical to the Defendant’s seal imprint’s seal imprint, and it is insufficient to acknowledge that there was a loan contract as alleged by the Plaintiff.
(B) The Plaintiff’s issuance of promissory notes and certificates of personal seal impression in the name of the Defendant are not sufficient to recognize the establishment of a lending contract as alleged by the Plaintiff, and according to the purport of the Plaintiff’s statement and the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff merely filed the instant lawsuit at the husband’s request and did not have any content regarding the instant monetary transaction. Thus, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed as the obligee against the Defendant.
Even if the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a loan contract with KRW 300,000,000, as alleged by the Plaintiff, the remaining amount paid out would overlap with KRW 200,700,000 from May 19, 2011 to March 20, 2012, even if the Plaintiff excluded from KRW 200,000,000 as of May 19, 201, the remaining amount paid out would overlap with that of KRW 203,70,000,000 from the above loan around May 20, 2011.
The fact that the Plaintiff received a total of KRW 409,700,000 from each of the parties is not a dispute between the parties, and thus, the Plaintiff was led to a repayment of KRW 200,000,000 on May 201, 201, and was led to a confession at the third day of pleading in the trial, but was submitted by the Plaintiff on November 28, 2017, as the case was submitted by the Plaintiff.