1. The appeal by the defendant (appointed party) is dismissed;

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant (appointed party).

1. Basic facts

A. On February 9, 2007, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 24,547,040 to the Defendant.

B. As to the amount of KRW 15,00,000,000 to the Plaintiff on September 19, 2008, the Defendant and the Appointor C prepared and awarded a monetary loan agreement form with the Defendant as joint and several surety C as to the money of KRW 15,00,00.

C. The Defendant paid each of the Plaintiff KRW 9,000,000 (total of KRW 15,700,000) on January 7, 2009, KRW 9,000,00 on January 14, 2010, and KRW 4,700,000 on January 22, 2010 (total of KRW 15,00,000) to the Plaintiff.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s loan extended on February 9, 2007 to the Defendant on September 19, 2008 remains as KRW 15,000,000. Since that day, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff a total of KRW 15,000,000 to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff was deemed to have repaid all of the loan.

However, in a separate lawsuit, the defendant and the Selection C are the father of the above loan and the plaintiff's network D defendant and the Selection in a separate lawsuit of KRW 9,000,000 among the above KRW 15,00,000.

The plaintiff asserted that the loan amounting to KRW 40,000,000 was paid as interest rate, and that the claim was accepted, and the plaintiff lost in a separate lawsuit.

If so, the Plaintiff’s loan to the Defendant is not yet paid KRW 9,00,000,000, and the Defendant is jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff the above KRW 9,000,000 and the damages for delay with the Selection who is a joint and several surety C.

B. The Defendant’s assertion that all debts owed to the Plaintiff did not remain any more than the amount that the Defendant is obligated to repay to the Plaintiff.

Therefore, Defendant and Appointed C do not have the obligation to pay the claim amount to the Plaintiff.

3. Determination

A. According to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 6 through 8 (including the number of branch numbers), the plaintiff was prepared with a loan certificate of KRW 9,370,000 from D on November 22, 2007, and ② The plaintiff is all the successors of D (the defendant, the selected person C, E, and F) around 2012.