1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The Defendant: (a) KRW 700,000,000 for the Plaintiff and its related thereto from September 3, 2015 to November 2015.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 27, 2011, the Plaintiff leased KRW 1 billion (hereinafter “the instant loan”) to D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) with the Defendant’s introduction without setting the due date, and received from D 10,225 display displays as a security for the instant loan (hereinafter “instant goods”). The said display was stored in E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) where the Defendant serves as the representative director.

The Plaintiff remitted the instant loan to the Defendant’s account, and the Defendant immediately remitted it to D.

B. On October 27, 2011, D deposited interest of KRW 40 million on the instant loan to F’s account, the representative director of the Plaintiff’s designated by the Defendant, and on November 28, 2011, remitted interest of KRW 40 million and KRW 30 million to F’s account from its own account, the account holder indicated the remittance to E.

C. On March 2012, the Defendant drafted a certificate of borrowing KRW 1 billion (hereinafter “the instant certificate of borrowing”) with the effect that the date of preparation to the Plaintiff was nine hundred billion retroactively from September 27, 2011.

D In consultation with E’s employees, the instant goods are shipped out of the E-house factory and are stored in the third place.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 3 and 4 (including branch numbers for those with serial numbers), part of witness G of the first instance court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. As long as the authenticity of the judgment on the cause of the claim is recognized, the court shall recognize the existence and content of the declaration of intent in accordance with the content of the document, unless there is any counter-proof, and shall not reject it without any reasonable explanation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2005Da34643, Apr. 13, 2006; 2006Da27055, Sept. 14, 2006). The above facts recognized and each of the above evidence are recognized, namely, that the Plaintiff lent KRW 1 billion to D.