(2) On September 2, 2014, the first instance court's reasoning: (a) stated the Defendant's preliminary counterclaim, which was 7th day after the 7th day of the judgment, stated that "the Defendant's preliminary counterclaim is not judged separately because it is difficult to recognize damage above the above recognition amount to the Defendant even if it was based on the Defendant's preliminary counterclaim; (b) stated the Defendant's additional judgment; (c) stated the Defendant's statement on the Plaintiff's payment amount (from the 5th day of the first instance judgment to the 6th day of September 24, 2014); and (d) stated the Defendant's total payment amount as KRW 12,00,000 on September 26, 2014; (d) No. 6,000,000 on September 26, 2014; and (e) stated the Defendant's additional payment amount as KRW 32,00,000 on October 10, 2014; and (e) stated the Defendant's payment amount as well.

However, as seen earlier, it is recognized that the Plaintiff paid the amount equivalent to the above repayment to the Defendant, while the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone does not have any evidence to support that the Defendant additionally lent the amount equivalent to the above repayment to the Plaintiff in addition to the Defendant’s payment details indicated in the attached Form. Therefore, it is difficult to reverse the effect of the above recognized Plaintiff

3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court of first instance is justifiable, and all appeals relating to the Plaintiff’s principal lawsuit and counterclaim and the Defendant’s counterclaim are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.