1. The judgment of the court of first instance, including the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff, Appointed Party)’s counterclaim claim added in the trial, is as follows.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 30, 1992, the Plaintiff lent KRW 50 million to F without fixing the due date, and prepared a loan certificate (hereinafter “the loan certificate in this case”) with F. The loan certificate merely states “interest rate shall be paid at the end of each month” and does not state specific interest rate.

B. From borrowing the above KRW 50 million from the Plaintiff to December 29, 2001, F, under the name of H that served in F, G, or the above architect office from the end of each month until the end of each month, and from the end of March to March 2007, F, under the name of H that served in F, G, or the above architect office, the amount of KRW 500,000 to H’s account in the name of H, while remitting the amount of KRW 500,000 to the Plaintiff’s or the Plaintiff’s wife from April 22, 2007, was not remitted to the Plaintiff’s account in the name of H on January 22, 2008.

(B) The transfer was made periodically before and after the end of each month, but the date was not fixed, and the transfer was made at once for two to three months. During the above period, the amount remitted by the networkF shall be calculated as the total of KRW 139 million.5 million.

The F died on February 19, 2010 and jointly succeeded to the property of the Defendant, the designated parties C and their children, D and E. D.

On the other hand, the investigative agency conducted an investigation into the plaintiff according to the petition that "the plaintiff received a bribe equivalent to KRW 150 million in total by receiving KRW 1,50 million per month or KRW 500,000,000 from the net F from 1992 to 2008." However, on July 28, 2010, it did not have sufficient evidence.

[Reasons for Recognition] The defendant, at the first date for pleading of the first instance court, led to a confession that the netF borrowed 5,000 won from the plaintiff, but revoked it on the first date for pleading of the first instance court, but only the fact-finding on the actual city of Jinju by the court of first instance.