1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, KRW 154,80,000 against the Plaintiff and its related thereto, from April 27, 2018 to March 26, 2020.

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. From January 2016 to July 2016, the Defendant borrowed KRW 100,000 from the Plaintiff on several occasions on several occasions under the pretext that the Defendant used it for the goods prices of healthy food enterprises operated by the Defendant, and the fact that the Defendant borrowed without fixing the due date for repayment under the pretext that it used it for the agency expansion expenses. Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff KRW 160,000,000 and delay damages therefor.

(hereinafter referred to as "the loan obligations of this case". (b)

As to this, the defendant asserts that the confession of the loan of KRW 160,000,000, which was made by the defendant on the third date for pleading of the first instance trial, shall be against the truth and shall be revoked as a result of mistake. The defendant cannot be deemed to have borrowed KRW 160,000 to the plaintiff, with the evidence alone presented by the plaintiff, exceeding KRW 100,000.

The defendant stated at the third date for pleading of the first instance trial that "the defendant borrowed KRW 160,00,000 from the defendant," and led to the existence and amount of the loan obligation of this case. In order to revoke such confession, the defendant must prove that the confession was based on mistake, in addition to the fact that the confession is contrary to the truth.

(See Supreme Court Decision 94Da13797 Decided June 14, 1994, etc.). However, the following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by comprehensively considering the purport of the entire pleadings in each of the statements in evidence Nos. 1 through 5, the Defendant stated to the effect that the confession was borrowed KRW 160,00,000 from the Plaintiff, consistently with the written reply of July 4, 2018, submitted by the first instance court, as well as the written reply of July 4, 2018, which was submitted by the first instance court, as well as the written statements, etc. as of March 28, 2019, and as of March 26, 2019, by the date of the closure of the pleadings in the first instance court.

The defendant did not assert that it would be based on either mistake or mistake, ② from January 2016 to January 2016.