1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Basic Facts

Around August 20, 2006, the Defendant subscribed to the three accounts of 10,000,000 won per month in which the Plaintiff had guidance, and of 5,00,000 won per month in the payment of the fraternity (in which amount is increased to 60,000,000 won after the receipt of the fraternity), and 21 number meters per old account (hereinafter referred to as “instant number meters”).

On November 20, 2006, the Defendant received KRW 10,000,00 from the Plaintiff with the limit of the above 4 units, and prepared a payment note (hereinafter “instant payment note”) with the purport that “the Plaintiff shall receive KRW 10,000,000 from the limit of the previous units No. 4 of the instant number system, and faithfully pay the time limit until the completion of (the instant number system).”

On May 28, 2007, the defendant prepared and delivered to the plaintiff a cash custody certificate of KRW 10,000,000 with the amount of money as KRW 10,000.

(hereinafter “this case’s cash custody certificate”). [The grounds for recognition] did not dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 4 through Gap evidence 6 (including paper numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the plaintiff’s argument as to the payment rejection of this case’s payment rejection of the whole pleadings, the defendant did not pay KRW 10,100,000 per month from five times to 21 times per month, while he was paid KRW 600,00 for the old account No. 4 of the instant number fraternity, and the plaintiff paid it on behalf of the defendant. In sum, the plaintiff paid it on behalf of the defendant.

Therefore, the Defendant should pay to the Plaintiff KRW 10,200,000 paid by the Defendant on behalf of the Plaintiff (=600,000 x 17 times) in accordance with the instant payment memorandum.

The plaintiff alleged on the cash custody certificate of this case was issued with the cash custody certificate of this case by the defendant, and lent KRW 10,000,000 to the defendant on May 28, 2007, and the defendant must return it to the plaintiff.

Since the defendant's summary of the defendant's claim on this safety defense is subject to bankruptcy and immunity, even if the plaintiff's claim exists, the defendant shall be held liable for the claim.