The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and the purport of the appeal are the judgment of the first instance.

1. The reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the first instance are as follows, with the exception of dismissal or addition as follows (the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act). The second 8-party 8 acts “within July 2007” are as follows: “Around August 23, 2007.”

3 pages 1) The term “not” in paragraph 1.

“On the other hand, the Plaintiff asserts to the effect that, “On the other hand, half of the interest or delayed damages calculated at the rate of 6% per month is the Plaintiff’s share, so the Defendant’s interest or delayed damages, which the Defendant has to actually receive from C, are not excessive to the amount calculated at the rate of 3% per month against the principal amount of 60 million won, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it.

“” shall be added.

Under the 3th page, the term "loan" shall be read as "for the next use".

Under the 3rd side, “I show 1 to 2...................” in addition to the following: “The Plaintiff did not seek the repayment of the loan against the Defendant after September 13, 2010, and only after March 21, 2018, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant with a content-certified mail claiming that the amount of KRW 25 million was the amount of the second remitted money, and then the Plaintiff brought the instant lawsuit on July 23, 2018.”

4. The phrase “not later than the end of November 2018” of the 4th parallel shall be deleted.

Under the 4th day, the trade name of “E” was changed to “G (A Co., Ltd., Ltd., “H” on March 31, 2008, “I” on August 14, 2008, and “E” on March 31, 2009, respectively.

The above company shall be appointed as “Co. E” regardless of its trade name change.

Under the 4th page, “no 5 conduct” (the Defendant disposed of 205,000 shares above at par value per 500 won in writing prepared on June 27, 2019)

The plaintiff asserted that there was no dispute over the date of the sixth pleading in the first instance court, and the confession was made, but this was revoked on the date of the first pleading in this court. However, the statement of evidence No. 17 alone is against the truth.