1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Determination of whether the form of this Court’s consolidation of the scope of adjudication is either selective consolidation or preliminary consolidation shall be based on the nature of the motion, not the intent of the parties, and the scope of adjudication in the appellate trial shall be based on such nature of the motion.

Therefore, in a case where both substantially selective consolidation claims are filed in the order of preliminary priority, and the court of first instance dismissed the main claim and rendered a judgment that accepted only the conjunctive claim, and only the defendant filed an appeal, the appellate court shall determine all the two claims as the subject of the trial.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2013Da96868 Decided May 29, 2014). In the instant case, the Plaintiff is seeking against the Defendant the return of loans under a quasi-loan agreement, and the return of loans, which are primarily made pursuant to a quasi-loan agreement, and the payment of a promissory note against the issuer of a promissory note.

The first instance court dismissed the plaintiff's primary claim against the defendant and accepted the conjunctive claim.

However, the above two claims may be accepted, regardless of whether or not they are acceptable to other claims, and regardless of their names, they are substantially compatible and selective consolidations.

However, it is only the primary preliminary relationship in the order of judgment by the plaintiff's will.

Therefore, even if only the defendant appealed against the judgment of the court of first instance, the whole of the above two claims are subject to the judgment of this court.

Under the following, the above two claims shall be determined on the premise that they are the selective consolidation relationship.

2. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a party’s external relationship with the Defendant’s wife, and the Defendant is a person who establishes and operates C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) a corporation for the purpose of developing and manufacturing software around November 30, 201.

(b).