The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. Judicial effect of the instant monetary supplement agreement (Ground of appeal No. 1)

A. We examine the summary and issues of the case.

(1) According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record, the following facts are revealed.

(A) The J Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “J”), an affiliated company of I Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “I”) established a limited liability company for special purpose M&A (hereinafter “M”) while raising a complex leisure test construction fund.

(B) On January 26, 2012, M entered into the first loan agreement entered in the judgment of the court below, which received a total of KRW 80 billion from Defendant D, X Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”).

According to this, ① a loan should be used for a loan purpose to a borrower (J) under the “loan Agreement that theM lendss KRW 80 billion to J,” and ② M should have a person obligated to supplement funds (I) enter into a funding supplement agreement in order to supplement the shortage of loans, interest repayment funds, management funds, etc.

M entered into a contract to lend loans to J on the same day.

(C) On January 26, 2012, I entered into an agreement on the supplementation of funds relating to the above Defendants, M and the first loan agreement with M (hereinafter “instant funding agreement”).

The instant funding coverage agreement provides that ① where MI is unable to repay the principal and interest of interest of M, I shall lend funds to M by subordinated loan method; ② Where I fails to meet the obligation to supplement funds, the creditors of the first loan agreement shall compensate for damages, such as the principal and interest of loan, fees, expenses, etc.

(D) Defendant E, H, and G acquired part of the loan claims from Defendant X, and received the transfer of rights and duties under the Fund Supplementary Agreement.

(E) The grounds for supplementing funds, such as M is unable to repay the above loans.