beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for an additional determination as to the following matters, thereby citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The addition;
A. As of August 28, 2006, the Defendant claimed that as of September 12, 2007, the secured debt of this case, the principal amount of KRW 30 million, accrued interest of KRW 5.9 million, accrued from the Plaintiff on September 12, 2007, and thereafter, the additional interest of KRW 5.9 million, accrued from August 29, 2006 to September 12, 2007, the principal amount of KRW 10,306,849, and the principal amount of KRW 30 million were appropriated in sequence, and eventually, the Defendant left KRW 16,206,849 out of the principal amount as of September 12, 2007.
However, according to Gap evidence No. 24, the defendant confirmed that "the receipt of Sep. 12, 2007," which was bound in the investigation records, was stated as "as of September 12, 2007, the amount payable out of the secured debt of this case remains 9.2 million won" on August 1, 2012, in the prosecutor's office of Seoul Dong District Prosecutor's Office No. 444 of the Seoul Dong District Prosecutor's Office, the defendant was examined by the prosecutor, and the prosecutor's office of the prosecutor's office of 444 of August 1, 2012, and the contents thereof were stated as "as of September 12, 2007, the principal of the secured debt of this case was extinguished as of September 12, 2007, and only 9.2 million won with interest accrued was remaining."
The defendant's assertion against this is not accepted.
B. The defendant asserts that at the time of entering into the contract for the assignment of the secured debt in this case on the proposal of E, the amount of the secured debt would have been determined at the time when the plaintiff raised an objection against the transferee F, and that there was no deception that all the secured debt amounting to KRW 90 million and the interest claim exists.
related.