The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation as to this case is as follows. Paragraph (2) is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the court adds a judgment to this court. Thus, this is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The following shall be added at the fourth end of the first instance judgment:

“The Defendant alleged that the title B of the instant monetary loan agreement attached to Gap evidence 3-1 and 2 was forged, but the above corporate representative director’s seal of the title B of the said contract is based on the official seal of the real representative director, and the authenticity of the entire document is presumed to have been established since there is no dispute between the parties concerned that the above corporate representative director’s seal of the title B of the said contract was based on the official seal of the real representative director, and there is a lack to reverse it and there is no other counter-proof evidence.”

2. The summary of the court’s further determination is based on the judgment of the court of first instance.

A. As of June 4, 2018, the Plaintiff asserted that G was liable for a huge amount of KRW 2.9 billion to G. The Plaintiff paid KRW 980 million in total to G upon receipt of the Defendant’s request from the Defendant, with the payment of the said subcontract payment amount of KRW 80 million on June 7, 2018, and KRW 980 million on June 8, 2018. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s allegation that the Plaintiff lent KRW 980 million to the Defendant based on the instant monetary loan agreement was rejected in the first instance trial. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff was liable for a considerable amount of KRW 2.9 billion on the basis of the evidence submitted in the first instance trial and the evidence submitted in this court (including the evidence No. 95-102, No. 737, and the Plaintiff’s assertion that this part of the evidence submitted in the first instance trial and the evidence submitted in this court were justifiable.

B. The Plaintiff’s assertion on the payment of KRW 2.5 billion against the Defendant on June 11, 2018 against the Plaintiff was made on June 11, 2018.