1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The grounds for admitting the judgment of the court of first instance, which the plaintiff asserted in the trial while appealed, are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and even if each of the evidence submitted by the plaintiff is examined in light of the pleadings, the judgment of the court of

Therefore, the reasoning of this court’s judgment is that the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to that of the relevant part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for dismissal or addition as set forth in paragraph (2) below.

(1) The plaintiff filed an application for the resumption of argument in this case for the examination of M and N that the amount paid to the defendants is known to be a loan, but this application was filed for more than seven months after the appeal in this case, which constitutes a means of real-time attack and defense, and in light of the result of the argument, the conclusion of this case cannot be determined only with the above evidence, and thus, the plaintiff's application for the resumption of argument in this case cannot be accepted). 2. 4. 7. from the fourth to twenty-two (d) of the judgment of the court of first instance (the plaintiff's complaint and its progress) are as follows.

(D) On December 10, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Plaintiff and its progress 1) filed a complaint with the Guro-gu Seoul Police Station to the effect that “the Plaintiff, in collusion with Defendant D, B, and C, by deceiving the Plaintiff from February 24, 2005 to September 16, 2009, acquired approximately KRW 420 million by deceiving the Plaintiff,” and that the said Defendants received approximately KRW 420 million from September 16, 2009,” and the said case was transferred to the Gwangju Southern Police Station on February 10, 201, and was conducted a mass investigation.

After that, the prosecutor of the Gwangju District Prosecutors' Office did not have any special loan certificate even though the plaintiff extended the amount equivalent to KRW 500 million to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff extended the money to the above defendants for two years, but even if the repayment period has expired, the plaintiff continued to transfer the money for five years, it shall be deemed that the loan was not the loan, and the above defendants paid the money to the plaintiff continuously for five years.