1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

On December 15, 2014, which was after the judgment of the first instance court by public notice became final and conclusive, the Plaintiff asserts that subsequent appeal is unlawful, since the Defendant perused and copied court records on December 15, 2014, and filed subsequent appeal on January 12, 2015, the two weeks thereafter.

However, since the fact that the defendant applied for perusal or duplication of the records of trial on December 15, 2014 and inspected the actual records of trial on January 12, 2015 and submitted a written appeal for subsequent completion to this court on the same day is apparent in the records, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

The Plaintiff’s assertion on the merits made a loan to the Defendant of KRW 10 million on October 18, 2013, and KRW 2 million on November 28, 2013, and the Defendant did not pay the loan and sought the return of the loan.

However, according to the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, it is recognized that the Defendant prepared and delivered a cash custody certificate to the Plaintiff, with cash custody of KRW 10 million as of October 18, 2013, and a promissory note as of December 22, 2013 related thereto, to the effect that the Defendant borrowed cash of KRW 2 million as of November 28, 2013, to the Plaintiff, and that the Defendant issued the loan certificate to the effect that it borrowed cash of KRW 2 million as of November 28, 2013.

However, in full view of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6 and the purport of the entire argument in the defendant's personal examination result, the defendant served as a marina in the entertainment drinking house "C" and was liable to pay 10 million won to the business owner. On October 2013, the plaintiff, who served as a business owner at the entertainment drinking house "D", entered the defendant as D in return for resolving the defendant's above prepaid credit amount. During that process, the plaintiff prepared a cash custody certificate as of October 18, 2013 and a promissory note as of December 22, 2013. The plaintiff ordered 48% of the sales amount as the defendant's share according to the sales of the customers recruited by the defendant, and then agreed to deduct the above 10 million won from the sales amount as the defendant's share, and thereafter, the defendant borrowed 2 million won from the plaintiff and set up the above certificate as of December 18, 2013.