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

1. The Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion asserts that, from December 2, 2011 to October 12, 2012, the Defendant should pay to the Plaintiff the Plaintiff a total of KRW 21,70,000,00 to the Defendant as indicated in the following table lease.

on December 18, 201 10,000,000 on the date of Nos. 10,000 on December 15, 2011, 201; 3,200,00 on February 14, 2012; 200,000 on February 24, 200 on March 24, 2012; 6, March 20, 2000 on March 20, 200 on March 20, 2012; 6,000 on March 20, 200 on July 27, 2007; 6, July 30, 2008; 6, 2000; 6, Oct. 14, 200, 207;

2. Determination

A. On December 2, 2011, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in the statement in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and Eul evidence Nos. 1, 201, it is acknowledged that the defendant and Eul, as a borrower,, prepared a loan certificate of 10 million won on December 2, 201, and that the plaintiff transferred the amount of KRW 10 million to the bank account in the name of the defendant under the name of the defendant under the name of the defendant under the name of the plaintiff on December 2, 2011, to the plaintiff on December 2, 2011. According to the above facts, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff a loan amount of KRW 5 million (= KRW 10 million), and delay damages for the loan (Article 408 of the Civil Act provides that the plaintiff is liable to pay the whole amount of the loan amount of KRW 10 million to the plaintiff, but Article 408 of the Civil Act provides that each obligee or debtor bears the obligation of equal ratio, unless there is a separate obligee or debtor.

[2] As to this, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff invested KRW 10 million in the Plaintiff’s financial resources for the horse game business, and that it was merely paid KRW 10 million to the Defendant’s account because C was not able to engage in bank transactions due to bad credit standing at the time, and that it did not borrow KRW 10 million from the Plaintiff.