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
1..
Reasons
1. On June 2008, there is no dispute between the parties that the Plaintiff lent KRW 20 million to the Defendant as of June 30, 2008 on the ground of the claim. Thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff a loan of KRW 20 million (hereinafter “instant loan”) and delay damages, barring any special circumstance.
2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion of repayment
A. The defendant asserts that the defendant requested the plaintiff to return the loan of this case when it is urgently needed to pay the loan of this case to the defendant, and the defendant repaid 17.5 million won to the plaintiff on June 24, 2008, and the remaining loan of 2.5 million won was transferred to the plaintiff in lieu of paying the loan of 3,122,00 won under the agreement with the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant asserts that he paid the loan of this case in full.
As to this, the plaintiff did not receive 17.5 million won from the defendant, and the defendant paid 17.5 million won to the plaintiff is forged, and there is no agreement between the defendant and the defendant on the transfer of 2.5 million won in lieu of repayment of 2.5 million won in loan.
B. Determination 1) In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including serial numbers), and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including serial numbers), the result of the written appraisal by the appraiser C of the first instance trial and the purport of the whole pleadings as to the claim for reimbursement of KRW 1,750,000,000, the defendant paid to the plaintiff around June 24, 2008, it is reasonable to deem that the defendant paid KRW 1,50,000 out of the loan of this case. Accordingly, this part of the defendant's argument is reasonable. (1) The plaintiff signed and affixed a letter of confirmation (including Eul evidence No. 1) stating "6/24,175,00,000,000 won."
The plaintiff asserts that there was no signature or seal on the above certificate, but according to the result of the appraiser C's written appraisal, the plaintiff is above.