1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1. Purport of the claim.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is that the entries of evidence Gap 21 and 22 are not sufficient to recognize the fact that each of the loan certificates of this case was prepared with a false competitive indication, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for adding the following judgments:

(Application Law: the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act); 2. Additional determination

A. As to the assertion that each of the loans in this case was made up by the plaintiff's fraud, the defendant asserts that it constitutes a crime of fraud under the Criminal Act, since the plaintiff had induced the defendant to participate in the business while inducing the defendant to participate in the business,

(1) The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to each of the following facts: (a) the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to each of the following facts: (b) the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to each of the following facts: (c) the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to each of the following facts: (d) the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to each of the following facts: (e) the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to each of the following facts; (e) the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to each of

Furthermore, the remaining evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize the fact that the Plaintiff deceivings the Defendant to prepare each loan certificate of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

The defendant's argument is without merit without further review.

B. The defendant asserts that the plaintiff embezzled the company's capital by appropriating the paid-in capital for private use or withdrawing the paid-in capital, etc.

The plaintiff, who has embezzled the defendant's assertion that the plaintiff paid the share price on behalf of the defendant and the company's funds are the same as having actually recovered and repaid the company's capital.