1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following additional determination.

(hereinafter the same shall apply) . Additional determination

A. The Defendant, even though there is no obligation to pay KRW 380 million to the Plaintiff, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff, upon the Plaintiff’s request from the Plaintiff, D, and E, prepared a loan certificate to the effect that the Plaintiff would formally prepare for the payment of KRW 380 million (hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case”) with respect to the amount paid to D in order to show the Plaintiff’s family, and that the said agreement is null and void as a false declaration of conspiracy, and if the Plaintiff had the Defendant prepare the loan certificate of this case in order to assume the Defendant liable for the Defendant’s debt to the amount actually paid to D, the act of drawing up the loan certificate of this case must be revoked as a declaration of intent by deception or mistake.

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant's expression of intent through the preparation of the loan certificate of this case was made with a false conspiracy, as alleged by the defendant, or was made with a mistake or omission by the plaintiff, and the above argument by the defendant is

B. The Defendant: (a) primarily, the obligation based on the instant loan certificate is the guarantee obligation against C or D, or E, a merchant, to participate in the H apartment construction project conducted by the Plaintiff Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”); and (b) the principal obligation arising from commercial activity was extinguished upon the expiration of the five-year extinctive prescription; (c) the Defendant’s guarantee obligation was extinguished depending on the subsidiary nature of the guaranteed obligation; and (d) the loan subject to the instant loan was used as the business funds for the instant apartment construction project; and (e) the Plaintiff also was the Plaintiff.