1. The plaintiff's appeal and the plaintiff's claim expanded in the trial are all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal and the costs of appeal shall be considered in the trial.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, in addition to the use of part of the reasons stated in the 7th to 10th 15 of the judgment of the court of first instance, it is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it shall be accepted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The 7th to 14th of the judgment of the first instance shall be followed by the following parts:

1) Although the deception against the Plaintiff did not have the intent or ability to repay the money even if it borrowed the money to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s deception with respect to the purport of “a high interest would be paid upon investment in business,” around February 20, 2013,” and “a change in the amount of business funds because there is a difference in the amount of business funds” around April 17, 2013, and thus, the Plaintiff’s deception with respect to the said amount was falsified, and the case was transferred from the Plaintiff to the lower court for the instant criminal case under the pretext of borrowing KRW 40,00,000,000 on April 17, 2013, and KRW 10,000,000,000 on June 10, 2013, and was transferred to the lower court for the instant criminal case under the pretext of borrowing KRW 20,000,000,000,000 as the loan money and transferred the money to the Defendant.

A person shall be appointed.

(b) Parts 8, 17 and 20 of the decision of the court of first instance shall be followed as follows:

A person shall be appointed.

B. The Plaintiff’s assertion asserts that, on September 12, 2013, E entered into a contract with the Defendant to transfer the right to return the lease deposit of this case to the Defendant, the said transfer contract sought revocation as a fraudulent act against the Plaintiff, and the Defendant sought compensation for the value of the pertinent coffee shop and then transferred it to a third party, and sought payment of the lease deposit amounting to KRW 70,000,000, total amount of KRW 135,000,000, and delay damages.

A person shall be appointed.

(c) in Part 14 of the decision of the first instance.