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
The first instance court.
Reasons
1. On March 8, 2006, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff is liable to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 60,000,000 paid by subrogation agreement and delay damages after March 1, 2008, on the following day after the due date for the payment of KRW 220,00,000,000, when the construction of marina facilities in the Ma in the Ma of Sinsan-si was completed on May 10, 2006, and was not paid KRW 60,000,000 among the construction cost.
2. According to the evidence No. 1-1 and No. 2-2 of the judgment, it is recognized that the plaintiff holds respectively a promissory note note No. 1 and a note No. 25,000 of the due date, which constitutes ① on December 31, 2007, face value of 35,000,000, and ② on February 28, 2008, face value of 25,000,000.
Furthermore, as to whether the Defendant agreed to pay the construction price in lieu of F in the issuance of each of the above promissory notes, it is insufficient to accept such agreement solely on the basis of each of the descriptions in the Health Book and the Evidence Nos. 1 to 10 (including serial numbers), and there is no other obvious evidence
(A) Even based on the evidence Nos. 4 and 7, the purport that F and K received the “number of units” from the Defendant as the price for acceptance and repaid the Plaintiff as the cost of the facility construction. As to the reasons why each of the above promissory notes was possessed, the Plaintiff asserted that it is different from F’s statement at the time of the application for the payment order of this case, the first instance court proceedings, and the criminal complaint against the Defendant, and the assertion is inconsistent with F’s statement. The Plaintiff filed an application for the payment order of this case on December 3, 2013, more than five years after the due date of each of the above promissory notes, and therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case was dismissed as it is legitimate in the judgment of the first instance, and thus, the Plaintiff’s conclusion is legitimate.