1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

2...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff paid the Defendant the Defendant’s safe points operating fund, etc. on several occasions at the request of the Defendant from May 2012 to August 2012, 2012, which was the period when the Plaintiff joined with the Defendant.

B. On October 6, 2012, the Defendant: (a) borrowed KRW 14,00,000 from the Plaintiff and is obligated to repay the borrowed amount; (b) “the loan certificate of this case” (hereinafter referred to as “the loan certificate of this case”).

3) The grounds for recognition were written and proposed. [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 5 (each entry, including paper numbers, and the purport of the whole pleadings.]

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to pay the loan amount of KRW 14,000,000 to the plaintiff, barring any special circumstance, since the defendant borrowed KRW 14,000 from the plaintiff.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant asserts that the defendant, by threat of the plaintiff, prepared the certificate of loan of this case, and thus, the above declaration of intent in the certificate of loan of this case is invalid.

However, it is insufficient to recognize that the instant loan certificate was prepared by the Plaintiff’s intimidation only with the testimony of the witness C of the first instance trial, and there is no clear evidence to acknowledge otherwise, the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.

B. The defendant asserts that he had expressed his intent of deception or deception only for the purpose of showing to his parents, and requested the preparation of a loan certificate to prepare it. The defendant asserts that the expression of intent in the loan certificate in this case is made by the plaintiff's deception or by the purport that it is not a true will.

However, as alleged by the defendant, there is no clear evidence that the loan certificate of this case was drafted by the plaintiff's deception or prepared without the intent to bear the actual obligation, and thus, it is difficult to accept the defendant's above assertion.

(c) argument for reimbursement;