1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of this court’s judgment citing the judgment of the court of first instance is to dismiss “2013” of the judgment of the court of first instance 12 pages 7 as “2011,” and except for adding the following grounds, it is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Accordingly, it is accepted by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. Grounds for addition;

A. The Plaintiff proposed that the Defendant entered into a contract to convert the obligation to return the investment amount into the loan in relation to the discussion on the conversion of the loan is after the instant contract was implicitly rescinded on September 23, 2011.

In other words, the obligation to return the investment amount of KRW 100 million has already occurred when the instant contract was implicitly rescinded, and there is no evidence or ground to acknowledge that the implied termination of the agreement was withdrawn or invalidated on the ground that there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the conversion of the loan thereafter.

B 10 is an error between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on January 2016, and the Plaintiff’s refusal to request the reduction of the amount to be returned by the Defendant is the fact that the Plaintiff requested the reduction of the amount to be returned by the Defendant.

(B) 7-9 submitted in the appellate court appears to have extracted only a part of the e-mail content. There is no evidence about how there was any discussion between the parties, and the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on August 22, 2017 when the amount of one year and seven months has elapsed from the date.

B. In relation to the interruption of the extinctive prescription, the Defendant asserts that the extinctive prescription of the above obligation is complete, since it was predicted that a separate loan contract will be concluded from the instant contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and the Plaintiff merely paid KRW 12 million to the Plaintiff, not with the intent to refund the investment deposit or with the intent to approve the said obligation.

The defendant changed the content of the loan agreement sent by the plaintiff and changed the amount, reduced interest rate, or joint and several provisions of the representative director.