1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

The scope of the judgment of this court is that the plaintiff filed a claim against the defendant for a loan based on the loan certificate from January 10, 2005 and the contract amount based on each of the instant documents (Evidence A No. 3). The first instance court rejected the above claim on the ground of immunity against the defendant, and it did not have any interest in the lawsuit, and only the defendant partly accepted the above claim, and the above part of the claim should be dismissed while appealed. The scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the part against the defendant among the above claims.

The reasoning of the judgment of this court, which cited the judgment of the court of first instance, is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the defendant added an additional judgment like Paragraph (3) to the assertion emphasized by this court. Therefore, this is cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420

As the Defendant’s assertion for further determination failed to pay KRW 5 million, the Plaintiff was found to be the Defendant’s office working in the insurance company, and the Defendant was unable to have avoided the disturbance that “the Defendant paid double payment of the insurance premium from the Plaintiff.” At the time, the Defendant did not have paid double payment of the insurance premium. However, the Defendant would pay KRW 4,50,000 per month on the terms of interest and principal repayment for the repayment of the above loan amount. Accordingly, each of the instant claims was prepared and issued.

Therefore, since the Plaintiff’s above and each claim against the Defendant are the same claims, the above part of the claim should also be exempted by the decision to grant immunity from the Defendant on September 24, 2012, Daegu District Court Decision 2007Da12137, Daegu District Court Decision 2007.

Judgment

According to the letter of this case, it is recognized that the defendant agreed to return KRW 4.5 million to the plaintiff.

Even according to the defendant's assertion, 4.5 million won was stated in the letter of this case after deducting 5,000 won from prior interest and 5,000 won from around March 4, 2005, when the above claimant's repayment period of KRW 5,00,000,000 for the above claimant's loan repayment period of KRW 5,00,000 for the above claimant's loan repayment period of KRW 5 million.