1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following order for payment shall be revoked, and that part shall be applicable.

1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (including the number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3, 5 through 9, and 11.

The defendant operated a postnatal care center in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter referred to as "existing postnatal care center"), and the plaintiff's mother from April 201 to his employee in the aforesaid postnatal care center.

B. The Defendant planned to transfer the existing postnatal care center to E and to establish a new postnatal care center (hereinafter “new postnatal care center”), and the Plaintiff, under the pretext of investing in the newly established postnatal care center, determined the amount of KRW 120 million on December 31, 2012, KRW 80 million on June 5, 2013, KRW 30 million on June 14, 2013, and KRW 300 million on interest rate (hereinafter “instant loan”).

C. On July 31, 2013, the Defendant drafted a loan certificate stating that the Plaintiff will pay KRW 50 million in addition to the return of the principal and interest of the instant loan (hereinafter “instant additional payment agreement”) and that the Plaintiff will borrow KRW 2% (24%) per annum on the said KRW 50 million (24%) interest per annum.

On August 21, 2013, the Defendant promised the Plaintiff to pay KRW 350 million to the Plaintiff a total of KRW 30 million with interest of KRW 2% per month on August 28, 2013 according to the instant loan obligations and additional payment agreement, and provided a loan certificate (Evidence (Evidence 3) with the content that the Defendant promises to assume disadvantages, such as raising the interest rate of KRW 2.5% per annum (30% per annum).

2. Summary of the parties' arguments;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant additional payment agreement was made by the Defendant, (1) even if the Defendant was invested in the instant loan by having the Plaintiff run a business of a postnatal care center, the Plaintiff was in the process of opening the said postnatal care center.