1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 5,00,000 as well as the full payment with respect thereto from December 31, 2012.

1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the entries in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 6, and Eul evidence No. 1 and 3:

Around August 2009, the Defendant, as the representative attorney-at-law of the law firm C, entered into a contract on acceptance of a lawsuit with 46 parties such as D, etc., and filed a lawsuit against the Korea Land and Housing Corporation and Gyeonggi-do as the legal representative at the Sungwon District Court Sung-nam Branch (2009Gahap16298), on which it was declared that all of the claims of D, etc. were dismissed by the same court on November 16, 2012.

B. Meanwhile, on the other hand, on December 31, 2012, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 5,000,000 to the Defendant’s bank account, and the Defendant used the said KRW 5,000,000 as the costs of appeal, such as stamp, etc. in the appellate trial against the said case.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The above KRW 5,00,000 was lent to the Defendant by setting the interest rate of 2% per month and within four months per maturity. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the money stated in the claim. 2) The Defendant demanded the Plaintiff to pay the appeal cost on the responsibility of the E office and appraiser F, which introduced the above case to the Defendant D, etc. and the judgment against the Plaintiff.

Accordingly, E and F have borrowed the appeal cost from the Plaintiff, and have the Plaintiff remit the above KRW 5,00,000 directly to the Defendant, who is the attorney at the bar, and therefore, the above KRW 5,00,000,000, not to the Defendant borrowed but to E and F.

B. In full view of the purport of the entire arguments in the testimony of Gap's evidence Nos. 2 through 5, 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the court below's testimony as a witness of the party to the trial, F evaluated whether the above case was appointed as an appraiser of the above case and caused damage to the above Eul, etc. due to the establishment of the second freedom, such as air pollution, composite malodor, noise, etc., and the above Eul et al., the defendant who is the defendant who