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 reasoning for the court’s explanation in this part is as follows: “The total amount of KRW 45 million (hereinafter “the instant money”) shall be added to the second 9 and 10th 10th 1 of the judgment of the court of first instance, i.e., KRW 10 million, KRW 15 million on December 10, 2013, KRW 15 million on March 7, 2014, KRW 15 million on July 3, 2014, and KRW 5 million on February 7, 2015” (hereinafter “the instant money”), and “the witness G” of the first 11st st e.g., written in paragraph (1) of the judgment of the court of first instance (from the second 4th to the second 12th e.g., the second e., KRW 420).
2. The parties' assertion
A. (1) The plaintiff is obligated to refund the loan amount of KRW 45 million to the plaintiff and delay damages to the plaintiff, as the defendant, who had an interest on the loan amount of KRW 45 million, when the defendant had an interest rate and the due date for payment, while there is a concern about collective action of the residents of the Yeong-gun, Young-gun, Young-gu, Seoul. The plaintiff is obligated to pay the loan amount of KRW 45 million to the plaintiff.
(2) Of the instant money by Defendant, the sum of KRW 10 million on December 10, 2013, KRW 15 million on March 7, 2014, KRW 15 million on July 3, 2014, and KRW 40 million on the part of the Defendant’s father (hereinafter “instant money”), is KRW 143 square meters on the part of KRW 1,074 square meters in Y-gun, Young-gun, Young-gun, the Defendant’s father, and KRW 261 square meters on the part of KRW 1,00,000 on the part of KRW 1,5 million on the part of the Defendant’s father, and KRW 5 million on the part of the Defendant’s father-gun, the Defendant’s father-gun, and KRW 50 million on the part of the Plaintiff’s father-gun-gun, the Defendant’s claim for the instant money should be dismissed as the Plaintiff’s retirement money.
B. In view of the amount that the Plaintiff paid to the Defendant as the price for the instant real estate sales contract, the said sales contract was concluded at the negotiation stage, even if the amount of KRW 40 million out of the instant amount was paid to the Defendant.