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 plaintiff alleged that he lent KRW 500 million to the defendant around, and sought a payment of the principal and interest of the loan against the defendant, and that the defendant agreed to pay KRW 500 million to the plaintiff in preliminary.

As to this, the first instance court found that (1) the submission of the Plaintiff’s evidence alone is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff lent KRW 500 million to the Defendant, and that the Plaintiff dismissed the Plaintiff’s primary claim on the grounds that there is no other evidence to acknowledge this, and (2) the Defendant prepared a written confirmation to the effect that the Plaintiff would pay KRW 500 million to the Plaintiff on November 13, 2008, and as alleged by the Defendant, the said written confirmation was invalid as a false

The above payment agreement of KRW 500,000 cannot be deemed to have changed to the content of receiving KRW 140,000,000 from development income, and most of the plaintiff's conjunctive claims were accepted except for the part of the conjunctive damages for delay.

Since this Court appealed only to the defendant, the scope of this Court's trial is limited to the preliminary claim (2) in the judgment of the first instance court, which is the part against the defendant.

2. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as follows, except for the dismissal or addition of the following items of the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, the reasoning for the conjunctive claim in the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Under the third page, the part of the 1 to 3th sentence was pronounced as follows. The part of the 1 to 3th sentence was written as follows.

【The Prosecutor appealed, but the Prosecutor’s appeal was dismissed on December 11, 2014 (Seoul District Court Decision 2014No3010). The Prosecutor’s appeal against this was dismissed on March 20, 2015 (Supreme Court Decision 2015Do101). The foregoing judgment became final and conclusive (hereinafter above).