1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The ground for appeal by the plaintiff citing the judgment of the court of first instance is not significantly different from the argument in the court of first instance, and the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance are justified even if each evidence submitted to the court of first instance was presented to this court.

Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows, except for the addition of the following '2. Additional Judgment' as to the assertion that the plaintiff emphasizes or adds to this court, and therefore, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance.

The "Witness C" of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be regarded as "Witness C of the court of first instance".

The third 14 to 17 of the judgment of the court of first instance stated “A, only, ........., by misunderstanding the testimony of the witness B of the court as stated in Gap evidence 7, Eul evidence 2-2, Eul evidence 1, 2, 3, and Eul evidence 3-1, it is recognized that Eul worked in the construction site of this case as the head of the public service division at the construction site of this case and moved to D on March 21, 201 and retired on October 16, 201, which is before the date of the agreement of this case, and the loan certificate of KRW 450,00,000, which is written by Eul to the plaintiff, contains the name, resident registration number, address, etc. of the two individual and does not contain any phrases related to the defendant, and that Eul, together with the above loan certificate, has only forged the loan certificate in the name of Eul (an employee who was transferred to the plaintiff.).”

If B bears the testimony of witness B of this court on each of the statements No. 6, 17 of the evidence No. 6, 17 of the first instance judgment No. 4-4 of the first instance judgment, the fact that B personally borrowed KRW 35,000,000 from the Plaintiff is only recognized.

2. Additional determination

A. First, the Plaintiff agreed to pay the Plaintiff KRW 450,000,000 to the Plaintiff, which was the Defendant’s on-site director, for losses incurred at the instant construction site. The Plaintiff’s agreement is 450,000 to the effect that B, which was the latter head of the on-site director (or the on-site director’s agent), confirms such agreement.