The appeal filed by the defendant limited liability company C is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by Defendant C.

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is that the defendant limited liability company C among the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the part corresponding to the defendant limited liability company among the reasons of the judgment of the court of first instance in addition to adding the judgment as stated in paragraph (2) below, and thus, this court's explanation is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since it is not sufficient to reverse the facts or judgment admitted by the court of first instance as evidence submitted by the court of first instance or the evidence as stated in subparagraphs 1 through 7 and the witness of the court of

(hereinafter the meaning of the abbreviationd language used in this context is as in the judgment of the first instance). 2. Additional determination

A. Defendant B’s assertion 1) On October 22, 2015, when Defendant B took office as the representative director of Defendant Company, the Plaintiff and D concluded that “The Plaintiff loaned money to the Defendant Company and made a notarial deed to him/her about KRW 1.7 billion, and that the amount of debt would be at least KRW 1.7 billion,” and that the notarial deed, which is the basis for the Defendant Company’s obligation, is later delivered to B, was later signed at the end of each of the instant statements. However, the notarial deed found later was examined, and thus, the Defendant Company was a monetary loan contract between D and the Plaintiff.

3 Since each of the instant agreements was made by the aforementioned deception or mistake caused by such deception, the Defendant Company shall revoke the said declaration of intent.

B. On June 22, 2012, the Plaintiff prepared a notarial deed of a monetary loan agreement containing the content that the Plaintiff lent KRW 500 million to D on June 22, 2017 due date of payment to D and the Plaintiff at 30% per annum, and Defendant B prepared the instant letter on December 7, 2015, as seen earlier, however, it is insufficient to recognize that the evidence submitted by the Defendant Company alone was insufficient to acknowledge that Defendant B prepared the instant letter by deception or mistake as alleged above.