1. In the judgment of the first instance, the part against the defendant ordering payment exceeding the scope cited below shall be cancelled.

1. Basic facts

A. D’s loan, etc. 1) D’s loan, upon the Plaintiff’s introduction, to E, and ① April 27, 2009 KRW 60,000 on maturity of August 30, 2009 and KRW 1,800,000 on interest monthly (hereinafter “instant loan 1”).

(2) On July 7, 2009, with F’s joint and several surety, KRW 200,000 due date set on November 7, 2009 and lent without interest agreement (hereinafter “the second loan”).

(2) D) On July 20, 200, upon introduction of the Plaintiff, lent KRW 80,00,00 to E without interest agreement on November 7, 2009 (hereinafter “the third loan”). The Defendant delivered to D a letter of performance that “the debt amount of July 20, 2009 is KRW 80,000,000 upon payment of the work price (Evidence 1-1) to D until April 29, 201, and the Plaintiff agreed to deliver the said letter of performance to the Plaintiff by 00,000,000,000,000 won for each loan of this case to 30,000,000,000 won for each loan of this case to 60,000,000 won for each loan of this case to 60,000,000 won for the Plaintiff and 60,000,000 won for each loan of this case to 30,000.

“The loan certificate was drawn up and issued.”

C. D’s establishment of conciliation between D and E is a creditor who lent the instant 2/3 loans to H, who is his/her husband and wife on October 8, 2010, by the Changwon District Court (Seoul District Court Decision 2010Gahap2667) to E., and upon knowing that E would cause damage to D, the said sales contract and the contract to establish a right to lease on a deposit basis was made for the purchase and sale of real estate owned by his/her father and his/her father. Thus, the said contract and the contract to lease on a deposit basis was a fraudulent act.