1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the court of first instance.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court cited in the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows. Except for the addition of the judgment as to the allegations made in the judgment of the court of first instance to the following two, 10, 12, and 2, the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

In addition, the part of the judgment of the first instance court, each of the "Defendant B", "Defendant C Association", and each of "Defendant D", shall be deemed "C Association" and "D", respectively.

On the 8th of the first instance judgment, "4.5 billion won" in the 6th of the 196th instance judgment shall be " approximately 4.5 billion won".

From March 31, 2016 to January 2017, the first instance court held that “BK provided the instant real estate as collateral and had the Defendant, who was an insurance solicitor at the time of offering the instant real estate, borrowed approximately KRW 1.9 billion, as indicated in [Attachment 4] and borrowed KRW 1.9 billion, as indicated in [Attachment 4].”

The 10th 5th 10th eth eth eth eth eth eth eth 7th eth eth eth eth eth eth

2. Judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion of the trial

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) even if K and the Defendant set the purchase price of the instant real estate as KRW 4.5 billion as indicated in the judgment of the first instance, the Defendant’s claim for KRW 120,000,000 against K was not established by an agreement between K and the Defendant to appropriate it for the purchase price; (b) the above 120,000,000 won was not yet paid; and (c) the Defendant’s claim against K, as indicated in the attached Table 4 of the judgment of the first instance, as the sum of KRW 16,10,000,000 and KRW 20,000,000, KRW 27-7-20,000,000 for the remainder of the loan under the attached Table, which is the Defendant’s claim against K, was calculated in duplication, and thus, each of the above sum of the above KRW 130,00,000,000 for the above KRW 160,000.