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 court of the first instance’s explanation concerning the instant case is as follows, and thus, it is identical to the ground of the first instance judgment, except for dismissal, addition, or deletion as follows. Thus, this is cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Part 4 of the judgment of the first instance court, 11-12 of the judgment "Z" shall be changed to "C".

At the bottom of the 7th to 4th, “for example,” the Defendant added the following: “... (6) it is difficult to understand that the Defendant lent KRW 230 million to a certified judicial scrivener with the documents necessary for the establishment of the right to collateral security, as alleged by the Plaintiff, although it may be impossible for the Defendant to receive the loan, etc. (in fact, such substitute loan was not implemented) by the Plaintiff’s assertion, etc.; and (6) it is difficult for the Defendant to obtain the loan without obtaining any security therefor.”

Part 9 3 "In December 18, 2013" is deemed to be "in December 18, 2013," and 5 "in the same face, 120 million won" are deemed to be "in the same face, 130 million won".

Part 10, 14 "Judgment" is added to "Supreme Court Decision 2010Da17840 Decided June 24, 2010".

Part 11 3-4 "(for H and I land, J, the right holder of H and I, the right holder of 1/2, is also indicated as the debtor)" shall be deleted.

After the 11th page 11, "the transfer of the instant funds was made", "4. The instant funds were used to repay interest on the loans to the SPF agricultural cooperatives secured by Q, R, S, T, U, and V land. In the relevant civil litigation, K testified that the Plaintiff had no interest in the repayment of the said loans. However, K testified that the Plaintiff had access to NP office almost every day since around 2009 in the above lawsuit, and the Plaintiff did not file a complaint with K, and H, I, and G land was created a collateral security right with the NAF or the NA as the collateral security right that the Plaintiff was to obtain a substitute loan. Unlike the testimony of K, the Plaintiff also made a loan to the SP, R, S, T, U, V land as the collateral security right.