beta
Text
1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.
Purport of claim and appeal
1.
Reasons
1. The grounds for appeal by the Defendants cited in the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance, except for those emphasizing or adding the following arguments in this court, and even if the evidence submitted in the court of first instance shows the evidence submitted in this court, the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance are justified.
Therefore, the reasoning for the court's explanation on this case is as follows, except for the addition of the following "2. Additional Judgment" as to the assertion emphasized or added by the court of this case, and therefore, it is identical to the part of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is accepted by the main text of Article 420 of the
2. Additional determination
A. First, the Defendants asserted to the effect that Defendant B paid a total of KRW 307,484,400 to the Plaintiff during the period from October 5, 2015 to December 5, 2017, both the Plaintiff’s instant loan claims were extinguished by the repayment.
According to the Plaintiff’s statement No. 2-1 through 6, it is recognized that Defendant B remitted the amount exceeding KRW 140 million of the Plaintiff’s principal of the instant loan between October 5, 2015 and December 18, 2017 to the Plaintiff.
However, according to the evidence Nos. 1-2, and 2-2 of the evidence No. 1-2, it is acknowledged that Defendant B prepared the statement of payment No. 5 on December 5, 2017 (Evidence No. 1-1 of the evidence No. 1-2), the written confirmation No. 12, Jan. 12, 2018 (Evidence No. 2 of the evidence No. 1-2), and Defendant B and the network C prepared the statement of agreement No. 12, Jan. 12, 2018 (Evidence No. 1-2 of the evidence No. 1-2). Accordingly, the Plaintiff and Defendant B, as of December 5, 2017, determined the balance of the outstanding principal of the loan to Defendant B as at KRW 140 million, and determined the due date until May 5, 2018. Thus, there is no evidence to acknowledge that Defendant B transferred the loan to the Plaintiff from October 2015 to May 21, 2017.