1. The plaintiff's appeal as to the main claim against the defendant is dismissed.

2. As to the defendant in the judgment of the first instance.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the basic facts is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The reasoning for the court's explanation as to this part of the judgment on the plaintiff's primary claim against the defendant is as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, except that the evidence submitted by the plaintiff at the court of first instance and the evidence submitted by the plaintiff at the court of first instance alone, " alone, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff at the court of first instance and the evidence submitted by the court of first instance," and as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the

3. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the judgment regarding the plaintiff's conjunctive claim against the defendant are the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the cases of dismissal or addition as follows. Thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Each "lease" of the 11th, 12th, and 15th of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be applied in the following ways:

The evidence submitted by the plaintiff in the first instance court No. 5, No. 14 of the judgment of the first instance court " alone shall be written with the evidence submitted by the plaintiff in the first instance and the evidence No. 10, No. 11 of the evidence submitted by the plaintiff in the first instance."

The reasoning of the judgment of the first instance court shall be as follows, the part of the 5th 16th 2th 16th 16th 16th 16th 1.

Rather, the Plaintiff continued to engage in money transactions in the same manner with the Defendant’s introduction. As to the loans of KRW 30,00,000,000, the Plaintiff received one promissory note of KRW 45,000 from September 3, 2010, and the Plaintiff voluntarily lent KRW 30,000,000 to D in the course of the Defendant’s tax investigation, as follows: (a) as to the loans of KRW 30,00,00,00, the Plaintiff was recognized by the entire purport of the pleadings as a whole; and (b) as to the loans of KRW 30,00,000,00, the Plaintiff loaned to D in the course of the Defendant’s tax investigation.