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
The reasoning for the court's explanation of this case is as stated in the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for dismissal or addition as set forth in paragraph (2) below, and therefore, it is cited as it is in accordance with the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. On the second part of the judgment of the court of first instance, "No evidence No. 11-1 and No. 9" was added to "No evidence No. 11-2" in Part 3, No. 8 of the judgment of the court of first instance, which added "No evidence No. 11-1 and No. 11-2", and the following additional contents are added to "no evidence No. 8, such as evidence No. 11-2" (in this regard, the plaintiff would rather make a loan certificate
However, as seen thereafter, while the Plaintiff had the Defendant acquire the F located in Jeju City, the Plaintiff’s husband E lent KRW 615,00,000 to the Defendant and notarized the loan certificate. In light of the circumstances surrounding the above lending of money, the relationship between the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and E, etc., the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff did not prepare the loan certificate on the ground that he is a family member while lending a large amount of KRW 258,00,000, as alleged by the Plaintiff, is difficult to accept.
() On October 21, 2013, the first instance court’s judgment held that: (a) the first instance court’s judgment No. 3, 4, 6, and 6,000,000 won at the bottom of the third instance judgment was followed; and (b) the Plaintiff agreed to the effect that, with respect to the details on which the Plaintiff delivered the above building to the Defendant, F at the Jeju City, would have leased the said building to the Defendant for the purpose of aiding and abetting the Defendant to acquire the said building upon the obligor’s application for compulsory auction by H, a creditor; (c) however, the said building was used to pay the Plaintiff’s debt to H, and the said 60,000 won was used to (the Defendant purchased the said building from I, but the purchase fund was borrowed from E by the Defendant.