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 Defendant, on April 7, 2015, borrowed KRW 15 million from the Plaintiff until July 30, 2015, with the maturity of payment until July 30, 2015, pursuant to the following: (a) evidence No. 1 of the Plaintiff (with respect to the authenticity of evidence and documents, there is no dispute between the parties. The Defendant defense that this document was prepared in collusion with the Plaintiff, or that it was prepared on the wind that causes a mistake of identity between the Plaintiff and the peace of the Co., Ltd.; (b) the entry of evidence No. 2 through No. 7 alone is insufficient to acknowledge it; and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it); and (c) the above recognition is insufficient to reverse the entirety of the entries and arguments.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay the loan amount of KRW 15 million to the plaintiff and its delay damages, except in extenuating circumstances.

(1) The court below's determination as to the defendant's defense is without merit since the loan was actually converted to C, and therefore there is no obligation to repay the above loan. However, according to the evidence Nos. 3, 4, and 7, the plaintiff can be acknowledged to have paid the plaintiff the full amount of 30 million won of the down payment, including the investment money to be borne by the defendant, to C. Thus, the defendant is entitled to return the investment amount of 30 million won upon the termination of the investment contract concluded with C. As to the judgment as to the defendant's defense, the defendant shall be entitled to return the investment amount of 30 million won according to the termination of the investment contract concluded with C. The plaintiff terminated the above investment contract, such as receiving five million won from C around the end of June 2015. Accordingly, the defendant asserted that the defendant offsets the plaintiff's above loan amount of 15 million won as the investment refund claim against the plaintiff.

However, there is no evidence to conclude that the Defendant received all of the investments worth KRW 30 million from C, and there is no assertion or proof as to the remaining property, which is the premise of the Defendant’s claim for return of investment deposit, so the Defendant’s defense is not the same.