1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasons why the court of the first instance shall explain in this judgment, among the reasons why the judgment of the first instance was accepted, is among the reasons why the judgment of the first instance was partially dismissed as follows:

1. Does

2. Since it is the same as the entry, it shall be quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The 14th written judgment of the first instance shall be amended to December 23, 2011, "No. 201."

The 4 pages 4 of the first instance judgment stating that “In excess, it is impossible to respond to the Plaintiff’s request” is amended as follows.

[The portion claimed by the Plaintiff as a loan to the Defendant by the Plaintiff at KRW 44,289,00 (=36,500,000). Although the Defendant asserts that this part was paid by the Plaintiff as a loan, if it is deemed that this part was a loan, it would be the unpaid construction cost.

7,789,000 won in relation to this part, the Defendant asserts that ① the construction cost of the instant construction project is KRW 330,00,000 (including KRW 30,000,00 in the final cost of the instant construction project, value added tax), ② 40,239,000 won after deducting the accelerator’s cost from the additional construction cost (i.e., KRW 41,39,000 - KRW 1,100,000 in the cost of building site development (i.e., KRW 2,00,000 in the extension design cost, KRW 10,000 in the structural diagnosis cost, KRW 2,750,00 in the structural design cost, KRW 3D traffic service cost of the instant construction project, KRW 3,00,000 in the G household cost, KRW 10,200,000 in the aggregate of KRW 297,390,000 in the instant construction cost).

) As such, the Plaintiff asserts that the above claim for construction cost set-off is a preliminary set-off against the Plaintiff’s loan claim. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence and the statement in Gap evidence No. 6 in the fourth 7th 201 of the first instance judgment, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 10 million, which was transferred to D’s account on December 23, 201, and KRW 25 million, which was transferred to the Defendant’s account on December 11, 2012, and September 2013.