beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. On May 20, 2010, the Plaintiff’s assertion was requested by the Defendant, who was an son on May 20, 2010, that “the Plaintiff shall pay the Defendant KRW 90,000,000 on behalf of the Plaintiff for the payment of the said KRW 90,000 to the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund.” As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the said KRW 90,000,000 and damages for delay.
B. On May 20, 2010, the Plaintiff’s repayment of KRW 90,00,000 to the Credit Guarantee Fund on behalf of the Defendant to the Credit Guarantee Fund is either disputed between the parties, or may be recognized by taking into account the overall purport of the statement and arguments as set forth in subparagraph 1.
However, as shown in the Plaintiff’s assertion, it is difficult to believe that the Plaintiff’s evidence No. 4 was written, and the remaining evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.
Rather, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of evidence Nos. 1 and 2-1 and 5-3 of evidence Nos. 1 and 5-3, the plaintiff, mother and child interested parties, the defendant was divorced around 2009 and was missing in a state of bankruptcy to the extent that he/she will reside in the Public Notice Board located in Seoul with his/her business failure. The plaintiff, the mother of the defendant, knew of this fact, made the plaintiff, who was the mother of the defendant, moving the defendant into Jeju-do and engaged in the business of cultivating and processing and selling the defendant without fault around 2009. From around that time, the plaintiff's husband and wife provided support for the defendant's rehabilitation, such as paying back the defendant's debts on behalf of the defendant. The defendant established D farming association under the prior support No. 3 on February 23, 2010, but the defendant and the plaintiff's husband and wife were in conflict with the plaintiff from around February 23, 2013, and the plaintiff's husband and wife were against the defendant.