1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. As to the case of application for the suspension of compulsory execution, this Court shall have regard to the case of application for the suspension of compulsory execution.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation as to this case is as follows, the part concerning " December 14, 2006" in Part 3 of Part 6 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be deemed to be " December 14, 2006" and the part concerning Chapters 6, 9, and 8, 19 of the judgment of first instance shall be deemed to be stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except where the part concerning Nos. 6, 9, and 8, 19 of the judgment of first instance is dismissed as follows. Thus, it shall be cited pursuant

【Supplementary Use】

(d) evidence No. 12, No. 12, and evidence No. 1 and No. 2 (if any, including a serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply);

according to their respective statements, the following facts are recognized:

① On May 12, 2005, KRW 5,000,000 was remitted under the name of I to the account in the name of deposit account in C.

C Deposit of KRW 10,00,000 on May 15, 2007 in the name of J, and KRW 3,000,000 on May 16, 2007 in the name of K.

on March 31, 2014, KRW 27,000,000, and KRW 5,000,000 on April 15, 2014 were remitted under the name of the defendant in the account in the G name of the defendant.

② C drafted each loan certificate to the Defendant stating that “each 24% interest per annum is 40,00,000 won on July 30, 2004, and 20,000,000 won on April 1, 2006.”

③ On June 30, 2014, C confirmed that the sum of the principal and interest on loans settled between July 30, 2004 and April 15, 2014 to the Defendant is KRW 279,924,600 = Principal amount of KRW 110,00,000,000, KRW 169,924,600.

“The” has drawn up a certificate of loan settlement.

2 Of the above remittance details, the Plaintiff did not dispute each of the principal amounts of KRW 5,000,000 on May 12, 2005, KRW 3,000,000 on May 16, 2007, and KRW 27,000,00 on March 31, 2014.

As to the remainder, it shall be viewed.

In full view of the following circumstances, comprehensively taking account of the evidence mentioned above, Gap evidence No. 13 and the evidence No. 13 and the evidence No. 15 of the court of first instance, the President of the IBK enterprise, and the President of the IBB, but the president of the IBK and the President of the IBB, together with the overall purport of the arguments as a result of each of the orders to submit financial transaction information to the President of the Republic of Korea and the President of the National Bank, the above facts of recognition alone are as follows.