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 of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment, except where the relevant part is modified as follows. Thus, this is accepted by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Parts to be dried;
A. The second part of the judgment of the court of first instance, “864 square meters” in the 6th part of the 2nd part of the judgment of the court of first instance, “805 square meters,” “31 March 31, 2008,” “31 March 2008,” and “the 4th part, March 27, 2008,” “the 4th part, March 17, 2008,” respectively.
B. On the 5th judgment of the court of first instance, the 15th to 20th judgment was followed as follows.
"The plaintiff, while giving KRW 5 million to the plaintiff, added by the defendant to the plaintiff, and opened a passbook in the name of the plaintiff and repeated entry and withdrawal to the plaintiff on April 25, 201, and finally, deposited KRW 14:321,9 million on April 25, 201, and deposited KRW 14:31,000 on the same day, and brought all of the money (the written statement of KRW 1 through 6 (each deposit and withdrawal statement), and subparagraph 9 (new transaction application) (the written statement of KRW 7) is all of the defendant's written statement of KRW 5 million). Thus, the defendant asserts that the amount repaid on April 25, 201 by the defendant is only KRW 5 million, not withdrawn.
The appraiser H's written appraisal result (the "amount" referred to in subparagraphs 7-1 and 6 of the evidence A is the same or similar to the Defendant's written appraisal only, and the remaining appraisal part of the evidence No. 7-1 through 6 and the appraisal part of the evidence No. 9 are different from the Defendant's written appraisal). The appraiser I's written appraisal result [excluding the evidence No. 7-1 through 6 (the "amount" of the evidence No. 7-1 and 6)] was different from the Plaintiff's written appraisal result of August 19, 2016 [the plaintiff's written appraisal result of the appraiser I's written appraisal of the evidence No. 9-1 and 2-2 of the evidence No. 1 and 4-1 of the appraiser No. 5 (the "written appraisal of the evidence No. 7-1 and 6] were different from the Plaintiff's written appraisal result of the appraiser I's written appraisal of August 19, 2016.