In the second part of the judgment of the first instance, "D Apartment" (hereinafter referred to as "the apartment of this case") is added to "D apartment" in the second part of the judgment of the first instance.

On the 2nd page of the first instance judgment, “The construction of the instant apartment (hereinafter referred to as the “instant construction”) was carried out”, and thereafter, “the instant construction work” was added.

The 5th page of the judgment of the first instance shall be amended to " April 14, 2016" as " January 14, 2016."

2. Determination

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendants are obligated to pay the instant money as stated in the purport of the claim, since they did not borrow and repay the instant money from the Plaintiff. (2) The instant money was merely paid as the extended construction cost of the instant apartment complex, not the borrowed money. (b) Furthermore, Defendant A transferred the instant claim for the extended construction cost related to the instant construction work to the Plaintiff according to the agreement of February 19, 2016.

B. Determination 1) Whether the instant money constitutes a borrowed loan (A) Defendant A issued electronic tax invoices for KRW 325 million, excluding KRW 5 million paid on January 15, 2016, with the exception of KRW 500,000,000,000, which was paid on January 15, 2016, to the Plaintiff as the item of “former Home Apartment Construction Corporation,” as seen earlier. According to the purport of the evidence No. 13 and No. 8-1 of the evidence No. 8-1, the Plaintiff is still pending in the appellate court, based on the Cheongju District Court 2016Ga45 Claim for Construction Costs against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Separate Lawsuit”), which was handed down by the judgment of the first instance on October 19, 2017.

The plaintiff paid to the defendant A in Daejeon High Court (Cheongju District Court) 2017Na6444.