1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

The reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows, with respect to the Defendant’s assertion that there is no obligation to pay a loan pursuant to the business agreement between the Plaintiff and the business entity, the following judgments are added between the 4th 11 and 12 of the judgment of the first instance, and therefore, it is consistent with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Additional Parts] In addition, in the event that a contract for sale in lots is invalidated or cancelled through a business agreement, the Plaintiff and the business proprietor concluded a contract for the third party to repay loans to the Plaintiff on behalf of the Plaintiff, who is the buyer, and the Defendant expressed an intent to make profits pursuant to the above business agreement, so that the business proprietor bears the obligation to directly repay loans to the Plaintiff and the Defendant does not bear any separate obligation for the loans. The instant loan transaction agreement is a separate agreement with the above business agreement, which differs from the parties to the contract, purpose, and content, and is still in force regardless of the validity of the above business agreement, and the Defendant has the duty to repay the instant loan obligations as the principal debtor, so long as the instant loan transaction agreement has been concluded with the Plaintiff, as long as the contract for sale in lots has been concluded with the Plaintiff, even if the Plaintiff agreed with the business proprietor to preferentially appropriate the money already paid from the Defendant for the repayment of the Plaintiff’s loans to the Plaintiff, it is nothing more than that prescribed the business proprietor’s duty to cooperate with the Plaintiff for the purpose of securing the Plaintiff’s loans. The Defendant’s aforementioned assertion is groundless.