1. The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff.

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation on this part of the facts of recognition and the claim for the principal lawsuit is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

2. The part demanding the counterclaim

A. On April 8, 2015, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff’s loan amount of KRW 105,70,00 to the Defendant was issued by the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff, and thereafter, leased KRW 20,00,000 to the Plaintiff by July 13, 2015. In addition, the Plaintiff was obligated to pay KRW 36,241,00 to the Plaintiff from October 21, 2009 to February 5, 2013, and the Plaintiff was repaid KRW 31,380,00 to the Plaintiff, and was not repaid KRW 4,861,00 to the remainder. Accordingly, the Plaintiff was obligated to pay KRW 130,561,00 to the Defendant (=105,700,000,0000,000 KRW 20,000,000).

B. According to the statement in Eul evidence No. 1, the plaintiff's 20 days of loan to the defendant on April 8, 2015 (60,000,000), 10 days: 17,700,000 (17,700,000) and 24 days: The above amount is regularly borrowed from the defendant on April 8, 2015, 2000: the name of the plaintiff, who borrowed the loan certificate "A."

However, in full view of the following circumstances that can be recognized by comprehensively taking account of the evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings as mentioned above, the evidence submitted by the defendant alone is insufficient to recognize that the defendant lent money exceeding the amount recognized in the judgment of the main claim to the plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

1) The above loan certificate is asserted to the effect that the financial transaction details between the plaintiff and the defendant (which is entirely consistent with the evidence A Nos. 1 and 2, and the defendant, only after entering the appellate court, provided a part of the above money in cash and lent a loan exceeding the above repayment amount. However, the loan period and the loan amount are not entirely specified, and such large amount of money is not specified, as the defendant asserts.