1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, KRW 29,108,00 against the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s incidental thereto on February 1, 2014.

1. The reasons for the court's explanation of this case are as follows, except for the addition of the following judgments as to the matters alleged in the trial of the court of first instance, and therefore, they are quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The addition;

A. The defendant's declaration of intention that the plaintiff made investments in or loans to the non-party company or the non-party to the non-party company or the non-party to the effect that the plaintiff made an in-depth demand that the non-party company or the non-party company might threaten the defendant to prepare a loan certificate and prepared the loan certificate of this case. The plaintiff asserts that the content constitutes an in-

However, even if it is not a truth-finding, it shall be null and void only when the other party knew or could have known that it is not a truth-finding. There is no evidence to support that the plaintiff knew or could have known the truth-finding of the defendant.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. On March 25, 2013, the Plaintiff received KRW 2,892,00 out of the money on the loan certificate of this case from the non-party company on March 25, 2013. Thus, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant’s debt owed to the Plaintiff was extinguished by payment.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 29,108,000 won remaining after deducting the above 2,892,000 won from the loan certificate of this case (i.e., KRW 32,00,000 - KRW 2,892,00) and to pay damages for delay calculated at each rate of 20% per annum under the Civil Act from February 1, 2014 to August 27, 2015, which is the day following the due date specified in the loan certificate of this case, for the existence and scope of the Defendant’s obligation to perform.