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 the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except where the supplementary judgment as set forth in paragraph (2) below is added to the corresponding part, and thus, it is citing it as it is by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. Supplementary judgment

A. According to C’s instruction, at the time of the Defendant’s assertion, the representative director of the Plaintiff Company and Nonparty Company (Co. D) concurrently worked, the Defendant, who worked as an employee, entered each of the instant promissory notes as the issuer of each of the instant promissory notes. Therefore, there are special circumstances, different from the overlapping assumption of obligation under general monetary loan agreement, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for reimbursement

B. The following facts and circumstances are acknowledged based on the overall purport of statements and arguments as follows, Gap's evidence Nos. 2 through 5, and Gap's evidence Nos. 8-1 through 3. The defendant, i.e., from Dec. 12, 2000 established by the non-party company to Sep. 25, 2013 when the defendant resigned from his office, not only served as the auditor of the non-party company from Sep. 25, 2013, but also served as the auditor of the plaintiff company from Dec. 13, 2007 to March 31, 2010, it seems that the plaintiff company was well aware of the financial status of the non-party company and the non-party company was not the plaintiff but the non-party company was actually the non-party company. In fact, most of the loans of this case were deposited into the non-party company's account, used as the operation fund of the non-party company, and the plaintiff merely borrowed funds from the non-party company No. e as the issuer of non-party company No.