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 Plaintiff’s determination on the cause of the claim (i.e., loan of KRW 108,500,000 to the Defendant over twelve occasions from March 21, 2012 to July 13, 2012 (hereinafter “instant loan”) does not conflict between the parties, or may be recognized by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in the statement Nos. 1 and 2 as follows.

The loan (unit (unit: won) lending method 1.30,000,000 C lending on March 21, 2012 is the nominal owner of D’s business registration operated by the Defendant at the time of lending.

On April 13, 2012, transferring money to an account under the name of 6,00,000 C, to the account under the name of 3.4,500,000,000 on May 4, 2012, 47. 5, 2012, 500,000 on May 17, 2012, 5, 2012; 6. 4,500,000 on May 22, 2012 to the Defendant’s account; 0,50,000,000 on May 25, 2012; 0,000,000 on May 31, 20, 200, 10,000 on May 310, 200, 200 on May 10, 201, 10, 10,010 on May 10, 2010.

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. The gist of the defense was from February 28, 2013 to October 29, 2013, the Plaintiff collected 142,100,000 won in excess of the instant loan from the business chain D business operator’s account operated by the Plaintiff and the Defendant for 13 times from February 28, 2013 to October 29, 2013, and thus, the instant loan was repaid.

In addition, the Plaintiff, who is a partner of D, transferred the said money to an individual account without the consent of the Defendant, constitutes embezzlement, and thus, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages equivalent to the above embezzlement amount. Since the Defendant offsets the above damage claim against the amount equal to the Plaintiff’s loans, the above loan claim was extinguished in entirety.

B. According to each description of the evidence Nos. 3-5 (including paper numbers), the original and the Defendant.