1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) against the principal lawsuit and counterclaim are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be principal lawsuit and counterclaim.

1. The reasons for the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning this case are as follows: (a) the court added “a sales contract was concluded” after the third 7th 7th tier of the judgment of the court of first instance; (b) the 6th 19th 19th son’s “Evidence A7” to “Evidence A8”; and (c) the 7th 7th 20th son to “C” to “A”; and (d) the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance except for additional determination as to the Plaintiff’s assertion as set forth in paragraph (2) below, and thus, they are cited pursuant to the main sentence

2. Additional determination

A. 1) On August 9, 201, the Plaintiff asserts that, as indicated in the instant loan certificate (Evidence A) between the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and C, the Plaintiff agreed to assume an obligation with the intent to assume an obligation, as described in the said loan certificate. 2) Whether the obligation to assume an obligation overlaps with the obligation to assume an obligation is a matter regarding the interpretation of the intent of the parties indicated in the relevant contract to assume an obligation, and if the assumption of an obligation is not clear as to the assumption of an obligation, it shall be deemed that the obligation has been taken over repeatedly (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Da3628, Sept. 24, 2002; 201Da76099, Jan. 12, 2012).

(See Supreme Court Decision 2001Da81948 Decided July 12, 2002, etc.). In addition to the judgment of the first instance court’s reasoning 3-A, the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court and the first instance court, i.e., (i) the Plaintiff would pay two times or more of the borrowed principal when he/she developed and sells E-U land during a period of approximately 160 years from the Defendant with a large amount of money borrowed from the Defendant, and (ii) the Plaintiff issued a promissory note with a face value of KRW 2 billion on February 18, 201, and prepared and executed a notarial deed thereon.