1. The plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claim are all dismissed.

2. After an appeal is filed.

1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows: under Article 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance, "the plaintiff" of the first instance shall be "the defendant"; "the issues and judgment of the second case" of the last action shall be "the judgment on the main claim of the second case"; "the plaintiff of the second case" shall be changed to "G"; "the plaintiff of the second case" shall be added to "the plaintiff of the second case"; as evidence insufficient to recognize the plaintiff's main claim that the plaintiff lent the loan of this case to the defendant; and as evidence, evidence Nos. 13 through 16, 23, and 24 (including each number) shall be added to the conjunctive claim added by the plaintiff in the court of first instance as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act; and therefore, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with

2. Additional matters to be determined (Judgment on preliminary claims);

A. The plaintiff's assertion that if the plaintiff lent the loan of this case to E other than the defendant, the defendant is practically involved in the operation of E while deep learning in the financing and management of E, and is responsible for and repaid the loan of this case together with C (E company). The defendant has been committed with C while maintaining a substantial marital relationship even after the divorce with C, and the defendant has been responsible for and promised to repay the loan of this case together with C. The defendant notified the plaintiff of the claim of this case as part of the repayment of the loan of this case and recommended the plaintiff to participate in the distribution procedure. In light of the fact that the defendant agreed to repay the loan of this case to the plaintiff, and the defendant is obligated to pay the contract amount of KRW 150 million and delay damages to the plaintiff.

B. In full view of the overall purport of the arguments in evidence Nos. 5, 6, and 15, the Defendant’s assertion that, in the course of telephone communications with the Plaintiff on September 22, 2014 and text communications on May 28, 2015, the Plaintiff was not properly paid the instant loan claims.