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

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 5,027,268,934 won and the amount equivalent to 5% per annum from August 2, 2017 to August 30, 2017, with 15% per annum from August 2, 2017 to August 30, 2017, and 15% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment).

2. Purport of appeal

Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the amount ordered to be paid below is revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 2,200,000,000 won with 5% per annum from November 1, 2016 to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 15% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

The reasons why the court should explain in this decision are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except that part of the reasons for the judgment of the first instance is written in the same manner as that of the judgment of the first instance, and therefore, they are cited in accordance with the text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be dried;

A. On September 28, 2016, the court of first instance held that "a loan that was lent to the defendant by the plaintiff on the basis of the original copy of the payment order against the transmission of the wall (hereinafter "the loan of this case")" was "the loan that was lent to the defendant on the basis of the original copy of the above payment order against the transmission of the wall as of September 28, 2016."

B. Part 5 of the 8th judgment of the court of first instance was sent "the service was made".

(c)in addition, between conduct 8 and 9 of the first instance judgment, the following shall be added:

[Attachment, the Plaintiff’s payment order against the wall transmission as of November 9, 2017 (No. 2016j1236)

With respect to the claim of KRW 5,206,282,634, among the claims for administrative service expenses incurred by the defendant based on the original copy, the attachment and collection order (the above Annyang support 2017TTTTTT 6504) was issued from the above known support. The above collection order was served on the defendant on November 13, 2017.

(d) Nos. 1, 3 through 8, and 10 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be written with the words “No. 1, 3 through 8, and 10” written by the court of first instance No. 8-10 written evidence.

E. Article 13-14 of the judgment of the court of first instance provides that “3. Party’s arguments shall be determined.”

(f) Part 10 of the first instance court's 10th judgment "only with each description of evidence of No. 5 to 8 of the first instance court's 10th judgment " shall be made by taking into account all the evidence submitted by the plaintiff to this court, including each description of evidence of No. 5 to 8, 13, and 15 of the first instance court's 10th judgment, and the circumstances surrounding

G. On the other hand, in light of the meaning of the language and text of Articles 5(3) and 10(4) of the union subscription agreement (Evidence A) asserted by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s assertion that “the Plaintiff’s proposal is without reason to further examine the same,” which was written from 12-13 of the judgment of the first instance court, shall not be deemed to have lent KRW 6,283,924,740 to the Defendant, which was transferred from 8 December 2015 to 11, 2016, solely on the basis of the contents of the above union subscription agreement in light of the meaning of Articles 5(3) and 10(4) of the union subscription agreement claimed by the Plaintiff.”

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit (On the other hand, the plaintiff submitted an application for resumption of argument in the name of the plaintiff's attorney as of December 22, 2017. The plaintiff's existing assertion, the contents and type of evidence submitted in this case, the process of the lawsuit in this case, and the conclusion of the lawsuit in this case.

In full view of the various circumstances as seen earlier and the content of the application for the resumption of oral argument, it is inappropriate to accept the application for the resumption of oral argument by the Plaintiff, as it is inappropriate to accept the application. In addition, in light of the various circumstances as seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s assertion on December 2, 2017 to this court.

22.With regard to the submission of documentary evidence, accompanying documents, documents submitted as of January 10, 2018, and preparatory documents submitted as of January 12, 2018, it is difficult to reverse the above judgment).

Judges Kim Yong- For

Judges Cho Young-soo