1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. From around 2005 to 2006, C served as the representative director of K, the director of the said company, the director of D, the managing director of the said company, the director of the said company, the F, the director of the said company, the office of the above company, the office of H, the office of the above company, the office of the above company, the office of the above company, the office of the above company, the company’s whole affairs, and the defendant.

B. On January 18, 2006, the Plaintiff and J meta from B, C, D, and L, “NF’s non-funds are deposited with the BrB Bank, the denial of the President of the Republic of the Philippines M.” The Plaintiff and J agreed to attract foreign capital of KRW 50 billion from the BrB Bank. If the Plaintiff and J borrowed KRW 200,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,00,

The Plaintiff and J remitted total of KRW 210 million to B’s account on January 18, 2006, KRW 150 million on January 20, 2006, KRW 20 million on January 23, 2006, KRW 20 million on January 23, 2006, and KRW 10 million on January 25, 2006.

C. The Plaintiff received reimbursement of KRW 25 million among the above loans.

On March 12, 2006, the Defendant drafted to the Plaintiff and J a loan certificate stating that “160 million won was borrowed.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2-1, 2, Gap evidence 3, 22, Gap evidence 4-1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of claim, the defendant, in collaboration with B, C, and D, has a duty to pay the loan of KRW 80 million (i.e., KRW 15 million - KRW 25 million) remaining to the plaintiff, and to pay damages for delay after the due date, i.e., January 29, 2006, unless there are special circumstances.

[Plaintiffs, B, etc. agreed to pay the loan "in the Gu administration in 2006," and it is reasonable to view the due date as January 29, 2006 (as January 1, 2006, which is the day before January 1, 2006).

In addition, as between January 18, 2006 and January 25, 2006, the Plaintiff and J lent KRW 15 million to B, C, D, and L, but was paid KRW 25 million. The Defendant thereafter.