1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of the court of the first instance’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for modification as follows.

The part of the first instance judgment 6 pages 4 with the purport that “No ground exists” is amended to the effect that “The Defendant exempted the Plaintiff’s obligation or waived the Defendant’s obligation on the ground of the content certification (Evidence A6) written by the Defendant, which ought to be revoked by mistake by the Defendant’s employee.”

B. On the 7th page of the first instance judgment, the following parts shall be added.

[Attachment, the Plaintiff asserts that “the Plaintiff did not lose the benefit of the time limit for the instant agreed amount as of January 6, 2016, and did not have due date for the payment of F’s obligation, and thus, the obligation at maturity was only the amount of the instant agreed amount and thus, E’s obligation to the Defendant on January 6, 2016. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the said KRW 10 million was appropriated first for the interest on the instant agreed amount, as it was fully appropriated for the principal of the instant agreed amount.” However, as seen earlier, the instant agreement included the premise that “C would pay 10 million won to the Defendant on the 25th day from February 25, 2015 to April 25, 2016,” and that it is reasonable to deem that C would have paid 15 million won to the Defendant on the 205th day of May 27, 2015, respectively.

C. It is reasonable to see that the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, 8 pages 19 is "........."

Therefore, the defendant's content certification (the defendant's proof No. 6) is a separate argument for revocation of mistake.