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 concerning this case is as follows: (a) the defendant in the second sentence under the second part of the judgment of the court of first instance is dismissed as "D"; and (b) the following judgments are added to the last part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[4] The Plaintiff asserts that, in lieu of the repayment of the unpaid construction cost claim of KRW 23 million to E, F, the representative director of the Plaintiff, transferred the electrical construction business part from E. As to the remainder of KRW 70 million, the Plaintiff received a loan certificate of KRW 70 million as of August 3, 2011 from E. However, the above loan certificate of KRW 70 million as of August 3, 201, which was prepared and issued by E as of August 3, 2011, was specified as the due date of KRW 70 million for the unpaid construction payment of KRW 23 million (one year after the date of preparation of a loan certificate) on August 3, 2012 (the Plaintiff is the Plaintiff’s representative director as of KRW 20,000 as of August 3, 2011). On the other hand, the above loan certificate of KRW 2 and the above loan certificate of KRW 70 million as of August 3, 2011.

) It is not clear that E pays 70 million won to F as the comprehensive transfer and acquisition contract for electrical construction (the certificate No. 2 stated that E pays 70 million won to F as it provides for future funds. In light of this, there is doubt as to whether the above loan certificate is a document prepared on the same day as the comprehensive transfer and acquisition contract for electrical construction, and the above loan certificate is notarized by a notary public on March 25, 2014 when 2 years and 7 months have passed since the date the loan certificate was issued, and in light of other circumstances stated in the first instance court, it is doubtful that the above loan certificate was reliable, and therefore it is difficult to recognize the plaintiff's assertion immediately by the above loan certificate.

2. If so, the judgment of the first instance court is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.