1. The plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claim are all dismissed.

2. After an appeal is filed.

1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows: "I" of the second 10th 10 of the judgment of the first instance is as "I (However, evidence No. 2 is written N), "2. The judgment of this court" of the 15th 19th 2 is as "the judgment of the second 2.", "the witness L testimony and partial testimony of the witness M" of the 4th 9th 9 and 10th 4th 9th 10 "the witness testimony of the first instance court and the witness M of the 11th 11th 2th 13th 5th 5th 13th 5th 13th 13th 2th 2th 1000,000 won which the plaintiff remitted to G," and each of the above 2th 100,000 won 2th 2th 2th 100,000 won in addition to each of the above 100,0000.

A. The plaintiff's assertion that if the plaintiff's 10 million won paid to G cannot be deemed to be the amount loaned to the defendant, the defendant, even though he paid 150 million won to G, made an agreement with F and F as to the whole claim amounting to KRW 330 million (Evidence A 2) with F and operated solely by accepting I by payment in kind, was agreed to pay the above KRW 180 million to the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff the agreed amount to KRW 180 million and its delay damages.

B. After G was defaulted on June 2012, the Defendant acquired I’s business operation and facilities from F’s wife K and F solely from the Defendant, and entered into the acquisition contract.