1. The defendant's appeal is all dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is that “8,00,000 won” as “80,000 won” as “80,000,000 won” under Section 3 of the judgment of the court of first instance, and the Defendant’s assertion is identical to that of the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for addition of the judgment under Paragraph 2 below as to the Defendant’s assertion, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the

2. Additional determination

A. The summary of the Defendant’s argument against the Plaintiff A does not constitute a lending of KRW 10,00,000 to the Defendant. In addition, the Plaintiff’s operation of a head office with G is limited to that of the Plaintiff, and the Defendant did not agree to pay KRW 80,000,000, which is a part of the investment amount following the termination of the contract for the business. Nevertheless, there is no fact that the Plaintiff agreed to pay KRW 80,000, out of the investment amount following the termination of the contract for the business. Nevertheless, there is no fact that the Plaintiff’s criminal procedure related to the relevant criminal procedure (the Jeonju District Court of the first instance, the Military Branch of the District Court, the case of KRW 2011, KRW 2012, KRW 3064, the High Court of

[2] In light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to recognize the Defendant’s loan and the obligation agreed upon with the Plaintiff A based on the contents stated by the Plaintiff, etc., it is reasonable to recognize the Defendant’s loan and the obligation of the agreed amount. 2) The written evidence Nos. 2, 6, 7, and 11, Nos. 3 through 5, and Nos. 9 (including the serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the overall purport of the pleading as a whole by considering the witness G’s testimony as a whole. In light of the following circumstances, it can be sufficiently recognized that Plaintiff A had the Defendant’s loan and the obligation of KRW 80,000 against the Defendant, and the obligation of KRW 80,000.

Therefore, the prior Defendant’s assertion is without merit on different premise. A brought an accusation against the Defendant in criminal cases of evasion of compulsory execution against the relevant criminal procedure and the Defendant. On April 10, 2014, the previous main prosecutor’s office rendered a non-prosecution disposition against the Defendant on the grounds that there was no suspicion due to the lack of evidence.

In this chapter, the Defendant is in a state that H building goes beyond a public auction.