2. After an appeal is filed.

A. Plaintiff 1) The gist of the primary claim is as follows: (a) on April 25, 2012, the Plaintiff respectively lent KRW 10 million to the Defendant; and (b) on May 5, 2012, the Plaintiff received reimbursement of KRW 18 million. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the remainder of the loan amounting to KRW 18 million (i.e., KRW 18 million - KRW 10 million) and delay damages (i.e., KRW 18 million) to the Defendant. (b) The gist of the primary claim is that the Plaintiff entered into a contract with C to transfer the loan amounting to KRW 15 million to the Defendant; and (c) the Plaintiff used KRW 5 million out of the amount loaned to C by the Plaintiff to the Defendant.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay 18 million won and damages for delay as part of the total amount of KRW 20 million ( KRW 5 million) of the above bonds acquisition amount, etc. ( KRW 15 million).

B. The defendant's assertion that he borrowed money from the plaintiff is C, and the defendant is not the borrower.

Even if the Defendant borrowed money from the Plaintiff, the loan constitutes a “business fund,” and such loan constitutes a claim arising out of commercial activities, and the extinctive prescription has expired five years after the date of partial repayment.

No defendant shall borrow money from C.

C. Determination 1) The facts acknowledged in a criminal judgment related to the determination of the primary claim constitute a fluorous evidence in a civil trial, barring any special circumstance (see Supreme Court Decision 96Da14470, Aug. 29, 197) and the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement in Gap evidence No. 4, barring any special circumstance, it is recognized that the borrower, the Plaintiff’s loan of KRW 15 million, April 25, 2012, and KRW 18 million, May 5, 2012, the Plaintiff’s loan of KRW 3,00,000,000,000, as the loan of KRW 3,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won, as the loan of KRW 3,5,000,000,000,000,000).