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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

2. The above KRW 1 billion was paid in full, regardless of whether the loan certificate as of October 17, 2008 was a down payment or the first intermediate payment as of October 17, 2008, in light of the circumstances that are further recognized as follows:

Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the above loan certificate between the plaintiff and the defendants is no longer effective, and that the debt of defendant E as stated in the loan certificate on February 27, 2012 has been completely settled and extinguished.

The Plaintiff, in substance, refers to the down payment of the sales contract as of October 17, 2008, and thus, was not paid in full. The money received as the purchase price by the third buyer is sought as a quasi-loan for consumption or a contract deposit on the premise that the money belongs to the Plaintiff separately.

However, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of arguments in Eul's evidence 5-1 through 8 and Eul's evidence 10, the following facts: (i) on January 30, 2009, the Plaintiff and Eul paid 300 million won out of the money based on the above loan certificate to G, defendant B, etc. by content-certified mail; (ii) on October 24, 2008, the remainder of 700 million won was unpaid; and (iii) on October 17, 2008, as a member of the sales contract as of October 17, 2008, it received the purchase price from the third party and paid the purchase price to the Plaintiff and F in lieu of G (Article 6 (2) and (3) of the above sales contract); and (iv) on October 24, 2008, KRW 2000,000,0000,000 won out of the purchase price received from the third party's bank account; and (iv) on March 29, 20000,00.