1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

(b).

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (such as law, precedents, interpretation and application of legal principles, recognition of facts and facts requiring proof, determination of issues, etc.) is sufficiently reasonable as a result of determining issues in accordance with the appellate court’s methods and principles, laws, precedents, legal principles and rules of evidence based on the litigation materials and arguments submitted to the appellate court citing the court of first instance.

The reasoning for this Court concerning this case is as follows, and as stated in the part of the judgment of the first instance except for further determination as to the matters alleged as the grounds for appeal by the Defendants, as set forth in paragraph (2) below, and as such, as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. Thus, the reasoning for this Court shall be cited

2. (a) On the 6th instance judgment of the first instance court, the part in question is written by inserting “P” to “P”.

(b) On Chapter 7 of the judgment of the court of first instance, "130,14,66 won" (i.e., KRW 1,951,720,00 x 1/5) 130,114,66 (i.e., KRW 1,951,720,000 x less than KRW 1/5) x less than KRW 1/5.

(c) On the seventh day of the judgment of the first instance, the term “650,573,333 won” (i.e., KRW 1,951,720,000 x 1/3) 650,573,333 (i.e., KRW 1,951,720,000 x 1/3) x less than KRW 1/3.

(d) Part 8(b) of the first instance judgment, Part 12(b) of the first instance judgment: G is incorporated into “(B)”, but G is incorporated into “B.”

3. Additional determination on the grounds for appeal

A. In relation to whether the Plaintiff actually lent money to P in fact due to the failure to exercise the right to request a statement in the court of first instance, the Plaintiff did not submit all necessary data on the original copy of the loan, the process of preparation of the loan certificate, and the details of financial transaction, etc., and requested the court of first instance to exercise the right to request a statement from the court of first instance, but the court of first instance did not accept this request and did not accept the request, thereby recognizing the right to request a return of money based on the “new agreement” which was not initially claimed by the Plaintiff, thereby making it impossible for the Defendants to submit a sufficient defense method.