1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. Upon the plaintiff's conjunctive claim added by this court, the defendant.

1. The grounds for appeal against the plaintiff's primary grounds for appeal citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance are recognized as legitimate even if the witness G of the court of first instance bears the witness testimony at the court of first instance

Therefore, the judgment of this court is based on the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except for adding the judgment on the conjunctive cause as follows, and thus, it is also acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Judgment on the conjunctive claim

A. If the purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion is not that the Defendant written and delivered the instant loan certificate to G, not that of the Plaintiff, the Defendant is liable to pay G the loan amounting to KRW 60 million and interest or delay damages at KRW 12% per annum.

However, since G transferred the above loan claim to the Plaintiff, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the interest or delay damages at the rate of KRW 60 million and 12% per annum.

B. The defendant's defense prior to the merits asserts that the plaintiff's conjunctive claim added by this court should be rejected as it harms the interests of the court of the defendant.

However, the modification of the claim can be made until the time of closing argument in the fact-finding court unless there is a change in the foundation of the claim, unless it is obvious that the modification of the claim will delay the proceedings, and the modification of the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim, which is merely a difference in the method of resolution in the same life or the same economic interest dispute, does not change the foundation of the claim, and where most of the previous litigation data can be used for the purpose of examining the new claim, it cannot be said

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da4416, Apr. 24, 1998). However, in the first instance court, the Plaintiff is the Defendant.