1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning for the judgment of the first instance except for the modification or addition of the pertinent part of the judgment of the first instance as follows. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Supplementary or additional parts: ① “The entry of No. 11-3 of A” in Section 4-20 of the judgment of the first instance court shall be read as “each entry of No. 11-1 and No. 4 of A. 11-4”. ② “The entry of No. 7-1 of the No. 11 shall be omitted.”

The phrase "the debt extinguishment term" was unilaterally added to the defendant, and there is no evidence to prove the fact that A consented thereto, it cannot be deemed that there was an agreement between A or the plaintiff and the defendant on the debt extinguishment. Even if the plaintiff submitted the above letter in the related lawsuit as evidence or supporting material, such circumstance alone does not lead to the plaintiff's ratification of the term "the debt extinguishment term" in the above letter, and at least, it does not affect A, since the term "the debt extinguishment term" in the above letter is not effective

(3) No. 7, 10 shall be permitted.

“On the other hand, the defendant asserts that at a trial, the representative director G, etc. of A made a borrowed loan in violation of Article 39 of the Mutual Savings Banks Act, etc. and the defendant actually suffered damage from the Defendant’s use of the borrowed loan. However, the defendant took part in the crime of G, etc. and lent the name thereof.