1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

Judgment of the first instance.

1. Basic facts

A. The co-defendant E of the first instance court is widely known as “D” in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul, and the defendant is the chairman of the new Dogs Association in this Section.

B. The Plaintiff remitted KRW 70,000,000 to the account in the Defendant’s name on April 13, 2010, ② KRW 30,000,000 on August 31, 2010, ③ KRW 15,000,000 on September 8, 2010, ④ KRW 10,000 on June 30, 2013, respectively, and remitted KRW 5,000,00 to the account in the name of B on March 15, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1-8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The cause of the claim (Plaintiff’s assertion) is that the Defendant, while operating D jointly with E, borrowed a total of KRW 130,000,000 from the Plaintiff and repaid only interest of KRW 30,00,000 among them and up to September 2013, the Defendant is jointly and severally liable to pay the remainder of the loan KRW 100,000 and the amount of statutory delay damages to the Plaintiff.

3. As to whether the Defendant borrowed KRW 130,00,000 from the Plaintiff as a joint operator of D along with the Plaintiff as the joint operator of D, there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant borrowed money jointly with the Defendant on the sole basis of the fact that the entries in the Evidence Nos. 1-15, and the loan or interest of the Plaintiff’s assertion was remitted or deposited into the Defendant’s deposit account in the name of the Defendant (the Plaintiff received most interest directly from E, and 30,000,000,000). There is no other obvious evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

4. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.