1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against Defendant B in excess of the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Grounds for the judgment of the first instance court 8, 9, 9, 100, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 300,000,000,000,000,000 won

3.2

1) (3) The court in the above criminal trial against H added the following contents. The court held that the above amount is likely to have been paid in order to repay the Plaintiff’s borrowed money to Defendant B, and there is no other evidence to prove that H embezzled embezzled each of the above amounts, and this part was not established. The court held that there was no evidence as to the charge that H embezzled embezzled each of the above amounts, and it is hard to conclude that there was no evidence to prove that there was no evidence to prove that the above amount was embezzled, and that there was no evidence to prove that there was no evidence to prove that the above amount was embezzled from the above amount, and that there was no evidence to prove that there was 10,000,000 won paid to J on December 2, 2009 (the amount stated in No. 2) and 110,000,000 won paid to L on January 11, 2010 (the above amount stated in No. 50, 2000, 1000, 100,20000 evidence as follows.

Meanwhile, the Plaintiff paid 20 million won to K on February 16, 2010, and 10,000,000 won to J on March 11, 2010, in addition to the money set forth in the above table.