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 above part shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 4, 2003, the Plaintiff lent KRW 5 million to the Defendant under a joint and several surety by co-defendant C of the first instance court on December 4, 2003, and additionally lent additional money to the Defendant on June 2004.

B. The Plaintiff received reimbursement of KRW 4.7 million out of each of the above loans by withdrawing a total of KRW 4.7 million between September 21, 2004 and February 21, 2005 from the Defendant’s passbook (Account Number D) to February 21, 2005.

【Ground for recognition】In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties’ assertion

A. The Plaintiff lent to the Defendant a total of KRW 10 million on December 4, 2003, KRW 5 million on June 2004, and KRW 10 million on June 2004.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 5.3 million, excluding the remainder of KRW 4.7 million paid by the Plaintiff, out of the above loan 10 million, and damages for delay.

B. Defendant 1) The Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed on June 2004 that 4 million won shall be appropriated for the repayment of loans on December 4, 2003, which was agreed to lend at the time of lending, and thus, the Defendant’s actual amount of money paid by the Defendant around June 2004 is KRW 1 million.2) In addition to the above KRW 4.7 million, the Plaintiff’s joint Defendant C extinguished the Plaintiff’s loan claim upon the repayment of the above KRW 2.5 million.

3 The Plaintiff’s loan claims were extinguished upon the completion of the five-year commercial extinctive prescription.

3. Determination

A. The fact that the Plaintiff lent KRW 5 million to the Defendant on December 4, 2003 as to the cause of the claim is as seen earlier, and the fact that the Plaintiff lent KRW 1 million to the Defendant on June 2004 is the Defendant.

Furthermore, there is no evidence to acknowledge whether the Plaintiff further lent KRW 4 million exceeding the scope of recognition on June 2004.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the remainder of KRW 1.3 million, excluding the amount of KRW 4.7 million, which the plaintiff received from the defendant, among the above loans of KRW 6 million.

B. One defense against the defendant's defense.