1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the underlying facts is as stated in Paragraph 1 of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, inasmuch as the reasoning for the judgment of the first instance is the same as that of Paragraph 2 of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except that the phrase “A” No. 1, 2 (a loan agreement and a letter of delegation of authority, the plaintiff asserts that E or F has forged this document, but there is no evidence to prove that E or F has forged it), 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, and 5” in Section 6 of Article 2 of the judgment of the first instance.

2. The court's explanation on this part of the grounds for the claim is the same as that of Paragraph 2 of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, and this part is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. Judgment ex officio as to whether it conflicts with res judicata

A. In a case where the legal relationship in which res judicata of the established prior suit is res judicata becomes a prior legal relationship in the subsequent suit even if the subject matter of the subsequent suit is not the subject matter of the subsequent suit, the judgment of the final judgment in the previous suit shall be deemed to affect res judicata as a prior question in the subsequent suit. As such, the parties cannot make any other assertion, and the court may not make any other judgment,

(See Supreme Court Decision 98Da18155 delivered on June 9, 2000, etc.). B.

In full view of the purport of the argument in Eul evidence No. 9, the defendant filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff as Incheon District Court 2014Da50486, Incheon District Court, claiming the loan of this case, its interest, and expenses incurred from the default of obligation. The plaintiff asserted that the loan of this case should be revoked since the loan of this case was taken place by deception or mistake. On September 8, 2015, the above court rejected all the plaintiff's claim for revocation, and accepted the defendant's claim for the loan of this case and its interest, and rendered a judgment dismissing the defendant's claim for the expenses incurred in the default of obligation, etc. on October 1, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as "the judgment final and conclusive judgment").