beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
Reasons
1. Quotation of the first instance judgment
A. The defendant's grounds for appeal are not significantly different from the argument in the first instance court, and even if the evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court and the evidence submitted by the defendant in the first instance court (the evidence, such as investment agreement, record contents, and notice of reasons for non-prosecution, submitted in the first instance court and submitted in duplicate in the first instance court), the fact-finding and judgment in the first instance court are recognized as legitimate.
B. The reasoning for this case is as follows: “The Defendant stated that, in the case where the Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Defendant in fraud, it would be reasonable to spring” at the end of the first instance court’s first instance court’s first instance court’s first instance court’s decision, that “C was making a loan of KRW 30 million upon request by the Plaintiff at the time of the prosecution’s investigation.” However, although the Plaintiff conspired with the Plaintiff and C to manipulate the Defendant’s obligation, the notice of the reason for non-prosecution was an investigation into a large amount against the complainant and the suspect. However, on July 19, 2011, the Defendant lent the money as additional deposit under the pretext of B’s first instance court’s agreement to deposit KRW 35 million in the Gu unit during a futures option transaction with the advice of C on deposit of KRW 45 million,000,000,000,000 to the accusation unit at the time, it would not receive interest later.
On September 5, 2011, 201, C, who read the additional deposit amounting to KRW 63 million in the Gu unit of B, shall not immediately cover the additional deposit amount by making phone call to B immediately, and C, upon being aware of the fact that at the time, C had been suffering from the damage amounting to KRW 800,000,000, but C had become aware of the fact that it was changed from the complainant to the additional deposit amount of KRW 63,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
However, these amounts;