1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

The Defendant’s KRW 275,472,637 and its related expenses from May 5, 2015 to September 30, 2015 to the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff and the defendant related to the plaintiff and the defendant are doctors who operated the hospital in Gangwon-do's order, and since around January 2003, the plaintiff and the defendant came into existence in the relation of the person from around January 2006.

The plaintiff and the defendant did not clearly mention the time when the relationship is terminated. On May 13, 2016, the plaintiff and the defendant submitted the Eul 2 (the opening of the Handphone) as evidence, asserting that "the plaintiff and the defendant opened the Handphone number in a deep relation with the plaintiff and the defendant just like the back of the Handphone number and terminated the Handphone for about two years, and used the Handphone for the same day as the day when the relationship is terminated," and following the statement Eul 2, the plaintiff and the defendant terminated the Handphone contract around January 8, 2006.

B. Around December 20, 2004, the Plaintiff and the Defendant issued to the Plaintiff a promissory note with face value of KRW 300,000,000,000, and a promissory note with payment at sight (hereinafter “instant promissory note”). On the same day, a notarial deed was drawn up to the effect that the Defendant consented to compulsory execution of the said promissory note as a notary office C’s office No. 1594 on the same day.

(2) The Plaintiff received dividends of KRW 24,527,363 in total from April 19, 2005 to September 29, 2006 through the compulsory execution procedure with the said notarial deed as the executive title.

C. (1) Around June 2007, the Defendant applied for bankruptcy and discharge under Seoul Central District Court 2007Hadan26546 (Bankruptcy), 2007Ma26565 (Immunity) (Immunity). On December 13, 2007, the above court rendered a decision on discharge against the Defendant (hereinafter “instant decision on discharge”). The above decision on discharge became final and conclusive on December 28, 2007.

(2) When applying for the above bankruptcy and exemption, the Defendant submitted a creditor list to the bankruptcy court, and the list omitted the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant.

[Reasons for Recognition]