1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of this court’s judgment citing the judgment of the first instance is partly dismissed or added as follows, and the Defendant’s assertion emphasizing in the trial is identical to the ground of the judgment of the first instance, except as otherwise determined in paragraph (2). Therefore, this is cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

Following the second 14th notarial deeds in the judgment of the court of first instance, the phrase “(the issuer: the Plaintiff, F, the addressee: Defendant and E, date of issuance: January 19, 2015; date of payment: April 19, 2015; hereinafter referred to as “certificate of promissory notes in this case”)” shall be added.

The third 6 to 7 parallels in the judgment of the court of first instance (the part inside the table shall be excluded from the parallels) are as follows:

on August 27, 2015, E transferred the right by the notarial deed of the Promissory Notes to the Defendant, and notified this fact to F through the content-certified mail on September 7, 2015.The fourth 1st son of the judgment of the first instance, “A witness of the first instance court”, and the second 2nd son’s “D testimony”, respectively, shall be considered as “D and I witness of the first instance court”.

The fourth 9th 9th son of the first instance judgment “2 billion won” is “2 billion won (including prior interest),” “E” is “Defendant and E,” “this 14th son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s Professor,” respectively, is added to the following parts after the 18th son’s Professor.

From May 2015, 2015 after receiving the transfer through the Chinese company at D’s request, ○ 1.6 million Hong Kong was offered to F among those 1.6 million Hong Kong. While F was willing to play a game, chip was able to exchange the game with chip and chip for about 30 minutes. The witness I testified that D and E were in the same place.”

2. Additional determination

A. The Defendant’s assertion D does not lend money with the knowledge that F is to use it for gambling purposes.

F carried in the money borrowed from Makao into the Republic of Korea and used the money for the business of constructing officetels.

Even if a part of gambling was made, it is not true that all stuffed.

Therefore, illegal consideration.