beta
Text
The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
judgment of the first instance.
Reasons
The reason why our court should explain this case is the same as the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this case is quoted in accordance with the main text of Article 420 of the
[In light of the fact that the plaintiff was unable to submit all financial data, such as the details of transactions, at the time of payment for the construction cost that the plaintiff paid to the defendant, and that the plaintiff did not demand payment for about 8 years after completion of construction, and that the plaintiff voluntarily declared that the settlement of the construction cost of the church building was completed on or around December 2001, it is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff paid 2.5 million won out of the construction cost of the church building on behalf of the defendant, and there is no other evidence (the plaintiff applied for appraisal of the construction cost of the church building at the trial, but it is difficult to calculate the actual construction cost of the building that has passed over 20 years since it applied for appraisal of the construction cost of the church building at the trial, and therefore, it cannot be proven that the main agent who paid the additional construction cost
(2) In addition, the Plaintiff’s appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and the Plaintiff’s appeal is assessed against the Plaintiff, which is the losing party, on April 3, 2013, 2013, after the lapse of 10 years from September 1995, when the Plaintiff completed the church building, and the Defendant paid KRW 20 million to the Plaintiff including KRW 60,00,000,000 in the budget of the expenditure division in 2004. However, insofar as the expenditure portion does not specify the details of the long-term debt, it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant paid the above money to the Plaintiff as a reimbursement for the construction cost, and there is insufficient evidence to deem that the Defendant suspended the extinctive prescription by approving the Plaintiff’s claim for reimbursement.)