1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are all borne by the Defendant, including those resulting from the supplementary participation.

1. The reasons cited by the court concerning this case are the same as the reasons stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, except for dismissal or addition as follows. Thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Jin shall raise the “U” of the 6th 17th am of the judgment of the first instance court in W.

Part 7 of the decision of the first instance court is "A witness E, V's testimony, the result of the defendant's representative's personal examination" as "the witness E, V's testimony, and the result of the defendant's representative's personal examination".

Part 7 of the judgment of the first instance court is "each entry in Eul evidence 1, 6, and 7" with "each entry in Eul evidence 1, 6, 7, 10, 12 through 23".

From 10th to 12th 13th 10th am the following.

[5] Meanwhile, the Defendant asserts to the effect that, with regard to the process of lending money to the Plaintiff, “the Defendant: (a) lent money to the Plaintiff; (b) the amount of the claim against the Plaintiff was accumulated due to the Plaintiff’s managerial problems around August 2009; and (c) the amount of the claim increased thereafter, the Plaintiff’s representative director promised to transfer the Plaintiff Company to the Defendant and continued to lend it to the Defendant for the purpose of examining the Plaintiff’s construction license.”

However, as seen earlier, around October 201, which appears to have started a concentrated monetary transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant, as a whole, based on the facts acknowledged in paragraph (1) and the overall purport of the pleadings, the lawsuit was initiated between E and K due to the conflict over the management rights of the plaintiff company, and E was ruled against the plaintiff in the lawsuit, and in such circumstance, it is difficult to believe that, in the above circumstance, the plaintiff believed that, “if the rent is not repaid, the plaintiff would transfer the plaintiff company if the rent is not repaid,” and that, as the plaintiff alleged by the defendant, it is difficult to believe that he lent a large amount of money to the plaintiff with insufficient financial capability.