1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the case after filing a petition as set forth in the following paragraph (2). Thus, it is citing it as it is by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

(1) The grounds for appeal by the parties with respect to the remaining parts, excluding the parts to be used as follows, are not significantly different from the allegations in the first instance court, and the fact-finding and determination in the first instance court are deemed legitimate even if all additional arguments and evidence are combined with those added by this court). 2. The part of the first instance court, 7. 7. 7. 11 to 8. 8.

The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff paid KRW 40,000,000,000 to the Plaintiff on January 25, 201, as well as the interest thereon, around November 2013. There is no dispute as to the fact that the Defendant paid KRW 40,000,000 to the Plaintiff by means of payment or remittance of checks on November 2013, but it is insufficient to recognize that the said money was paid to the Plaintiff as the Defendant’s debt repayment (the Plaintiff’s evidence alone is that the said money was paid to other creditors for the purpose of repaying the Plaintiff’s debt repayment), and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise, this part of the Defendant’s defense was conducted from the judgment of the first instance court to 18,000,000 as follows.

C. According to the theory of lawsuit, with respect to KRW 35,00,000 and KRW 25,000,00, which is the amount cited in the judgment of the court of first instance among the Plaintiff, the Defendant is about the promotion of the lawsuit, etc. from May 16, 2017 to December 22, 2017, which is the date of the judgment of the court of first instance, where it is deemed reasonable for the Defendant to dispute as to the existence or scope of the obligation to perform, as to the Plaintiff, from May 16, 2017, the original copy of the payment order of this case, to the date of full payment.