The judgment below

Among them, the part against the plaintiff and the intervenor succeeding to the plaintiff is reversed, and this part of the case is reversed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the existence of the Plaintiff’s loan claim amounting to KRW 100 million on July 29, 2008 and loan claim amounting to KRW 30 million on September 22, 2008

A. The court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that Gap evidence Nos. 9, Gap evidence Nos. 10, and Eul evidence Nos. 23 included the above KRW 1.74 billion in the pre-sale price and commercial building supply contract from Eul's director's director G, offered and borrowed KRW 1.74 billion in the pre-sale price and commercial building supply contract from May 2008 to September 2008. The court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff's loan Nos. 1. 9 and 30 million in the loan No. 22, Sept. 22, 2008 included the above KRW 1.74 billion in the pre-sale price or loan No. 1.1.740 million in the pre-sale price, and the pre-sale price is the defendant's funds from the original company, and the loan No. 1. 300 million in the commercial building supply contract cannot be viewed as being owned by the plaintiff's agent or the plaintiff's agent.

B. However, we cannot accept the above judgment of the court below.

(1) The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that all of the loans of KRW 1.74 billion provided to the Defendant by H, the actual operator of which are KRW 90 million, are loans to the Defendant. Of these loans, KRW 90 million are loans made by the Plaintiff as collateral for the commercial supply contract, and that the loans of KRW 250 million, KRW 30 million, KRW 300,000 from BU, which the Plaintiff provided as collateral, are loans of KRW 300,000,000 from BVW, KRW 100,000,000 from BY, KRW 20,000,000 from BY, and KRW 14,00,000,000 from BZ

Dor, however, according to the records, the following circumstances are revealed.

① Evidence Nos. 9, 10, and 10, which served as the basis for the above determination by the lower court.