1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the court of first instance.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (such as law, precedents, interpretation and application of legal principles, recognition of facts and facts requiring proof, determination of issues, etc.) is sufficiently reasonable as a result of determining issues in accordance with the appellate court’s methods and principles, laws, precedents, legal principles and rules of evidence based on the litigation materials and arguments submitted to the appellate court citing the court of first instance.

The reasoning for this Court concerning this case is as stated in the part of the judgment of the first instance except for a decision on additional matters alleged by the Plaintiff as the reason for appeal, as set forth in paragraph (2) and paragraph (3) below. Thus, this Court cited this case as it is included in summary pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. (a) On the second part of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part “B” and “B” all shall be used as “B” and the second part “B” shall be deleted.

(b) No. 2 of the judgment of the first instance court, “C” and “C” shall be charged to “C” and “C” shall be deleted from “C”, respectively.

3. Additional determination on the grounds for appeal

A. The summary of the plaintiff's assertion made a substantial contribution to the excess of the performance of the credit rating bankB by in collusion with D through the credit rating company and the credit rating company, which it controls, and accordingly, the credit rating bankB received a loan of KRW 1 billion from the plaintiff with the financial statements made by the credit rating company and the credit rating company in excess of the performance of the credit rating bankB.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court of first instance, without examining these circumstances properly, judged that it is insufficient to recognize that the defendant was involved in the loan of KRW 1 billion, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding facts in violation of logical and empirical rules.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the following legal principles, various circumstances, and grounds, the Defendant’s loan of the above KRW 1 billion from the Plaintiff in the civil law.