1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, with the exception of dismissal or replacement of part of the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows, and thus, it is identical to the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is citing it as it is in accordance with

2. Each of the “intersection 9” in Parts 2, 2, 8, 12, 3, 5, 7, and 4 shall be considered as “mediation”, and the “C” in Part 4, 2 as “C”.

3. The replacement of the part 3, 3, 16, i.e., “fee” is replaced by “money on the pretext of commission,” and the part 5, i.e., “from the fact of recognition,” by integrating each of the entries in Gap, 9, 17 (including paper numbers), and Eul’s evidence 10 and the whole purport of pleadings.”

4. Additional parts

(a) Category 5, Chapter 7, “A 2 and 4,” added to “the fact that there is no dispute,” and “the following.”

B. Following Chapter 5, “Non-existent” in Chapter 12, following the date of issuance of the instant tax invoice: (3) the Plaintiff’s deposit of the relevant supply price to C is deemed the most unfair transaction; (4) the Defendant: (a) on November 1, 2013, a DNA loan Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “local loan”); (b) on the Plaintiff’s business period from September 1, 2010 to August 31, 201, the Plaintiff operated a loan brokerage business with a place of business located in the same address as the Plaintiff from June 14, 2011 to March 5, 2012; (c) the Plaintiff’s employee was the Plaintiff’s employee, with respect to value-added tax 496,896,64 won received from C during the taxable period of two years, with respect to the corporate tax invoice of KRW 496,64 won, value-added tax invoice of KRW 154,205,297 for each reason that the loan was received from C.