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 reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows. The "H" of the 2nd, 18th, and 20th, 20th, 20th, 4th, 11th, 5th, 5th, 7th to 14th, 5th, 7th, 7th, and 6th, 7th, 8th, 8th, 8th, 8th, 8th, 8th, 8th, 8th, 8th, 8th, 8th, 5th, and 20th, 420 of the Civil Procedure Act shall be cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(including the list of real estate). 2. Parts dried and added;

A. The portion of the above deposit money in KRW 450 million was deposited in KRW 250,000,000 (250,000 won per 1,000 won per 250,000 won per 250,000 won per 1,000 won per 30,000 won per 1,000 won per 30,000 won per cash, and the issuer of each of the above checks was confirmed to be F or C.

On June 21, 2013, the Defendant lent KRW 500 million to C, but received payment on June 27, 2013 and July 12, 2013, each of the said checks, etc. on which the said checks were kept. The Defendant asserts that the said checks were used again to lend KRW 500 million to C on July 30, 2013.

However, as seen below, there is no evidence to deem that the Defendant lent KRW 500 million to C on June 21, 2013, and the Defendant possessed a large amount of checks for one month.

It is difficult to accept the allegation that a person once paid KRW 50 million or KRW 500 million and re-grants KRW 500 million in a month.

The defendant argued in the trial that the sum of KRW 10 million, KRW 20,000,000 issued C, KRW 50,000,000 KRW 250,000,000 issued by the F Bank, KRW 400,000 in cash, and KRW 200,000,000,000 in cash, was lent to C by means of transfer without passbook, but it is objective as seen earlier.