1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 5,304,00,000 and KRW 3,120,00,000 among them.

1. The reasoning for this Court’s explanation concerning this part of the underlying facts is as follows, and this part of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance.

Part 3: The following shall be added at the end of the 16th page:

A total of KRW 1,00,000,000 among them was deposited into the Defendant’s account through the account in the name of Samsung Golf Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) which is an affiliated company of the debtor company, and the total of KRW 700,000,000,000 on July 9, 2008, and KRW 200,000,000 on October 10, 208), Adiena City Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) at the end of the second sentence, without distinguishing the Plaintiff.

Part 6, paragraph 4, the following shall be added:

After the rejection of the No. 51, No. 51, No. 10, and No. 11 were suspended, and according to the results of the appraisal and evaluation conducted in the instant case (Appellate Court), the height and height ratio at the time of the discontinuance of construction of the instant facilities was about 8.7%.” No. 6-6 of the “No. 51, No. 10, No. 11” was added to the “No. 51, No. 10

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Defendant’s representative director, G, in collusion with the debtor company, prepared a false report on the progress of construction work and a tax invoice, and explained to the effect that the ratio of the Plaintiff’s employee to the Plaintiff is identical to the report on the progress of construction work or the confirmation on the progress of construction work. Accordingly, the Plaintiff paid the debtor company the first and second loans in excess of the actual and ratio of the construction work.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the total amount of KRW 5,304,000,000, and damages for delay, which are the sum of the first and second loans in this case, due to tort damages.

B. A claim for return of unjust enrichment (the ground for the selective claim No. 2) provides that the instant credit transaction agreement shall provide loans in installments in proportion to the amount and ratio of facility funds.

. the defendant.