대여금
1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff ordering additional payment is revoked.
The defendant is against the plaintiff.
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the modification of part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance as stated in paragraph (2). Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act
2. The amended portion of the first instance court’s ruling No. 6, 13, 8, 14, 9, and 13, respectively, are “the Plaintiff submitted a confirmation document” No. 7, which read as “the witness F of the first instance court’s testimony,” and “the Plaintiff submitted a confirmation document to the same effect,” and “from November 23, 2009,” which read as “from January 209, 238, 390, 647,” which read as “the Defendant’s 260,238,000 won” and “the 260,238,000 won” and “the 10,000 won following the first instance court’s ruling No. 9,10,000 won and “the 360,000 won following the first instance court’s ruling”) and “the 10,000 won following the Defendant’s new ruling No. 4 and the 140,000,00,00.
Therefore, with respect to the method of satisfaction of obligation, ① the witness F of the trial party agreed to repay the relevant loans first priority instead of paying interest to the Plaintiff and the Defendant when lending related loans.