1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

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

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for dismissal or addition of some contents as follows. Thus, this is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Part 3 of the decision of the first instance court "C" shall be referred to as "B".

"A. No. 8 and 11" shall be added to the ground for recognition of the fourth 7th sentence of the first instance court.

Part I of the testimony of witness I and B of the 6th judgment of the first instance court is "A's 21 testimony and witness I and B's testimony".

The following shall be added to the sixth fourteenth decision of the first instance.

Defendant asserted that “The Plaintiff agreed to repay the amount of KRW 20 million by entering into the instant contract with the knowledge of the fact that the Plaintiff had already occurred at the time of entering into the instant contract, but the statement of KRW 14 alone is insufficient to acknowledge it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and the Defendant’s assertion is not reasonable.” The Defendant’s allegation is that “interest up to January 31, 2016” of Part 7 of the first instance judgment of “No. 7 of the first instance court’s judgment of “interest up to January 31, 2016” is “interest up to January 31, 2016 (the above KRW 46.5 million and interest amounting to KRW 4.5 million loans on September 10, 2015).”

The following shall be added to Part 7 of the seventh decision of the first instance:

The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff’s debt was fully repaid inasmuch as part of G’s wage was appropriated for repayment of KRW 93,045,423, including the total principal amount of KRW 90,164,808, out of the loan related to D branch until July 10, 2016. However, in light of the standard date of preparation of the evidence No. 3 (B, 2016, July 30, 2016), it is insufficient to recognize that the excess amount was actually appropriated for repayment of the loan in accordance with the above repayment plan, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise, the Plaintiff’s aforementioned assertion is reasonable.