1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning for the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, and the plaintiff added or added part of the judgment of the court of first instance to the argument that the exclusion period should be imposed at the trial of the court of first instance as follows, and the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to adding the judgment of the court of first instance as stated in the following Paragraph 2. Thus, it is acceptable as it is in accordance with Article

(hereinafter the meaning of the terms used in this context is the same as the judgment of the first instance court). Of the third page, the term “H contribution interest” in the table “for the plaintiff’s assertion” refers to “H contribution” and “I (member J) interest” respectively to “I (member J) contribution.”

Note 2, 3, and 6 in the last sentence of the 4th parallel shall be referred to as “Nos. 2, 3, 4, and 6”.

The "Witness" in the 5th sentence shall be the "Witness of the first instance court".

After the 5th page "Submission" was added to "(the confirmation of this case is also attached to objective data, such as a detailed statement of passbook transactions, a receipt without passbook, and a copy of a cashier's check."

The following matters shall be added subsequent to the "no grounds" in the 6th sentence:

“The Defendant, based on the instant confirmation document, lent a total of KRW 49,39,395,359 to the instant building association from May 10, 2005, and received KRW 587,621,567 as profit from May 10, 2005, and presented the annual loan and collection amount arranged to have not been given any loan in 2005, but to have been partially recovered. The Defendant asserted that the instant disposition of imposition based on the confirmation document that contains the above contents cannot be deemed as a monetary loan, and thus, the instant disposition of imposition was unlawful. According to each of the above evidence, the Defendant calculated the interest income accrued in 2006, while calculating it from the Plaintiff’s account.