1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following order for payment shall be revoked, and that part shall be revoked.

1. The first instance court dismissed the Plaintiff’s loan claim amounting to KRW 14,000,000 among the Plaintiff’s loan claims, and only the Defendant appealed.

Therefore, the part of 4,500,000 won and only the claim for overdue wages are subject to the judgment of the court of this Court after the plaintiff's claim was accepted and the defendant appealed.

2. Determination as to loan claims

A. According to the purport of the entire arguments and arguments as to the cause of the claim (only springing only for the claim of KRW 4,50,000), the Plaintiff loaned KRW 14,500,000 to the Defendant on March 15, 2017, KRW 6,000,000, KRW 3,500,000 on May 15, 2017, and KRW 15,000 on May 15, 2017.

In addition, according to the purport of each entry and argument in subparagraph 5, the Defendant may recognize that the Defendant paid KRW 10,000,000 to the Plaintiff on December 2, 2017.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 4,500,000 ( KRW 14,500,000 - KRW 10,000,000) and interest or delay damages thereon.

B. The Defendant asserts that the amount of the loan amount of KRW 3,500,000, out of KRW 4,500,000, which the Defendant had acknowledged the Defendant’s obligation to pay, was KRW 1,500,000 in the first instance trial, and the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff on July 14, 2017.

The defendant at the first instance trial to the plaintiff on March 15, 2017, KRW 2,300,000, and the same year

6. 9.200,000 won, and the same year.

6. The assertion that the reimbursement of KRW 2,000,000 was made on November 11, 200, but this argument appears to have been withdrawn by this Court.

Unless otherwise, the defendant's assertion is without merit, since it appears that the defendant's payment was made to the plaintiff in light of the amount of each of the above money, the timing of transfer, etc. as decided by the court of first instance.

According to the evidence Nos. 10, 13, and 15, the above KRW 3,00,000, which the defendant asserted that he had paid to the plaintiff as a loan repayment, was paid to the plaintiff.