1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

The court's explanation of this case is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the rejection of testimony of E by a witness of the court of first instance against the facts recognized by the court of first instance as follows. Thus, this court's explanation of this case shall be cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

"No. 14" shall be added to "No. 11" in Part 3 of the decision of the first instance.

The term "F" in the 3rd sentence of the first instance court shall be read as "H", and the term "C" shall be read as "D".

The "Secretary General" in Part 2 of the fourth decision of the court of first instance shall be deemed to be the "Director General".

The following judgments shall be added in the first instance of the fourth decision of the court of first instance in full view of the 12th decision, etc.

In light of the evidence, security, or payment in lieu of the fact of lending to the defendant, the plaintiff argued that the defendant was given a pelpel certificate donated by the defendant to the defendant to the defendant's new park (hereinafter "new park"), but the prosecutor's office received an investigation into the charge of occupational embezzlement against the defendant on May 4, 2010, the plaintiff stated that "the pelpel certificate 196 was issued to the plaintiff who was the head of the defendant's business office at the time, and the plaintiff did not make a statement that the pelpel certificate was returned to the plaintiff because the pelpel certificate was not sold to the plaintiff." In light of the fact that the plaintiff's above assertion cannot be trusted as it is, and that there was no objective evidence as to the fact that the defendant was authorized to borrow the defendant's operating expenses on behalf of the defendant in addition to the testimony of the party testimony E, the court below did not submit a statement that the pelpel certificate was returned to the plaintiff."

B. Prior to the determination of the conjunctive assertion, the money deposited with the account managed by the Plaintiff cannot be deemed as a loan, and the said money is the Defendant or the said money.