1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (such as law, precedents, interpretation and application of legal principles, recognition of facts and facts requiring proof, determination of issues, etc.) is sufficiently reasonable as a result of determining issues in accordance with the appellate court’s methods and principles, laws, precedents, legal principles and rules of evidence based on the litigation materials and arguments submitted to the appellate court citing the court of first instance.

The reasoning for this Court concerning this case is as stated in the part of the judgment of the first instance except for a decision on additional matters alleged by the defendant as the reason for appeal, as set forth in paragraph (2) and paragraph (3) below. Thus, this Court cited this case as it is included in summary pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Part 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance, "E, the representative director of the company abroad, is the plaintiff who is the substantial major shareholder of the company abroad."

3. Additional determination on the grounds for appeal

A. As to the assertion that USD 500,000, which the non-party company remitted to the defendant, was not a loan, the defendant's argument that USD 500,000, which the non-party company remitted to the defendant was used by the non-party company to purchase the mining business right from the IBB bank, and the defendant was not a money borrowed by the defendant. The plaintiff plans to purchase the mining business right from the IBB bank on May 2012, the plaintiff states that "it is a personal plan to purchase the mining business right (LS) from the IB bank, as it is an overseas corporation, and the name of an overseas corporation is required under the reporting procedure." The plaintiff requested to lend the defendant's name as an overseas corporation located in the Philippines to the IF bank through the defendant's account. In light of the following legal principles, various circumstances, and grounds, the decision of the court of first instance that the defendant borrowed USD 500,000 from the non-party company on May 28, 2012 is justifiable, and there is insufficient evidence in the appellate court's judgment.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion.