1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed.

1. The grounds for this court’s explanation concerning the parties’ assertion are as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to the dismissal of “from January 6, 2008 to January 16, 2008” as “from January 16, 2008,” under the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, which is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance.

2. Where there is a dispute as to the existence of obligation such as a loan, etc., the party asserting the existence of the obligation must prove it in accordance with the principle of burden of proof. In light of all the following circumstances acknowledged by the court of first instance as a result of the examination of the plaintiff himself/herself, Gap evidence No. 1, 2, Gap evidence No. 5, 6, Eul evidence No. 1 through 3, Eul evidence No. 726, and Eul evidence No. 7 (including the number), evidence No. 1 to 40, and evidence No. 1 to 30, and evidence No. 1 to 40, and evidence No. 3 as to whether the plaintiff lent to the defendant, the plaintiff's evidence No. 1 to 1-40, and evidence No. 1 to 3 are insufficient to acknowledge the facts of the plaintiff's assertion.

① From among the running money table of this case, the fact that the defendant himself was a private person is recognized in the virtual money table except for the evidence Nos. 1-9 and 32 of this case (the defendant directly led to a private person on the date of the first instance trial, but reversed each of the running money table of this case, and there is no private person in the evidence No. 1-9 and 32 of this case, and the confession of this case is revoked. Unlike other running money table, the confessions of this case are contrary to the truth and are deemed to be based on mistake, since the confessions of this case are contrary to the evidence No. 1-9 and 32 of this case. However, the above confessions of this case are deemed to be effective).