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 judgment of this court citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following additional determination.

2. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant used the F's stated amount as the actual operator of F's loan certificate as F's management fund, and that it is not a mere formal representative director.

In full view of the evidence Nos. 2 and 3, evidence Nos. 4-1 through 3, evidence Nos. 5-1, 2, evidence Nos. 7 through 12, evidence Nos. 5 through 9, and evidence Nos. 5 through 9, and the purport of the whole pleadings in the testimony by the witness J of the court of this case, the defendant may be acknowledged to have invested the funds for the business of this case or the management funds of the F and participated in the management of the F. However, such circumstance alone is insufficient to reverse the defendant's loan or quasi-loan for consumption on the amount stated in the

The plaintiff asserts that the loan certificate of this case (the evidence No. 1 and No. 5-2 of this case) was prepared by the defendant and I's coercion, and that the agreement for quasi-loan for consumption is not recognized as a authenticity, but is also null and void. However, it is insufficient to recognize that the loan certificate of this case was prepared by the defendant, etc.'s coercion even if some of the testimony of the above J's evidence No. 5-1 was taken by considering the above J's testimony as well, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.