1. The plaintiff's appeal and the supplementary selective claims in the trial are all dismissed.

2. After an appeal is filed.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 19, 2007, the defendant, at the plaintiff's office, received cash of KRW 90,000,000 from the plaintiff's office, prepared a certificate of borrowing as stated in the attached Form.

(hereinafter “The instant monetary transaction”). B. The loan certificate prepared in the process is “the instant loan certificate.”

Around the time of the instant monetary transaction, the Plaintiff’s trade name was “D Co., Ltd.” and registered as the current trade name on October 5, 2015.

【Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments;

A. On September 19, 2007, the Plaintiff’s actual manager, E, individually lent KRW 90,000,000 to the Defendant, and E delegated the right to collect the instant monetary transaction to the Plaintiff. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff a civil loan of KRW 90,000,000 and delay damages.

In electively, the defendant is obligated to pay damages amounting to KRW 90,000,00 and delay damages amounting to KRW 90,000,000,00 by deceiving the plaintiff or E even though he did not have any intention or ability to repay.

B. The Defendant, not Defendant E, was engaged in the instant monetary transaction from the Plaintiff, but did not borrow money from the Plaintiff for the purpose of cosmetics business, etc., and the act of preparing a loan certificate (Evidence A No. 1) as shown in the attached Form is null and void as a bad declaration of intention.

Furthermore, around November 2009, the Plaintiff was released from the Defendant’s obligation to the Plaintiff due to the instant monetary transaction, or was exempted from the Defendant’s obligation by declaration of bankruptcy and exemption from immunity (Seoul District Court Decision 2011Hadan2102, 2011, 2104, 2104).

Even if not, the monetary transaction of this case is a commercial bond and the five-year extinctive prescription has already expired.

3. The plaintiff.