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 reasoning of the court of first instance for the acceptance of the judgment is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of first instance except for the dismissal or addition in paragraphs (2) and (3) below, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be removed or added;

A. Article 2-2(a) through (6) of the text of the judgment of the court of first instance is dismissed. Section 2-2(a) through (7) of the judgment of the court of first instance is dismissed. Section 1 of the following. Section 4 of the judgment of the court of first instance is added to Section 4 of the judgment of the court of first instance [Evidence 6].

On May 23, 2006, the Defendant drafted No. 6 evidence No. 6 of the loan certificate stating that “The Defendant confirmed that 200 million won was borrowed at the end of October 2006, and the due date should be the end of December 2006,” with the date of preparation to the Plaintiff.

“”

B. Paragraph 2-B(a) of the first instance judgment is advanced as follows.

In the loan certificate drawn up by the Defendant on May 23, 2006, the phrase “a confirmation that the Defendant borrowed KRW 200 million” states that “the Defendant has borrowed KRW 200 million,” and “the Defendant is responsible for the borrowed amount.” According to the language and text of each of the above loan certificates, the above KRW 200 million is considered not to be “financial investment in C,” but to be “a loan to the Defendant.” (C) On the fourth or fifth or fifth or fifth or fifth or fifth or lower text of the first instance judgment, it is reasonable to confirm that the Defendant agreed to repay the borrowed amount of KRW 200 million on the condition that the borrowed amount of KRW 314,00,000 is not recovered.

It is reasonable to deem that “I” has agreed to exempt the Defendant from the obligation to return borrowed money on the condition that the amount equivalent to the total purchase contract amount is recovered according to the total purchase contract between E and C.

"Ero-friendly".

3. Additional determination

A. The gist of the Defendant’s assertion was that the Plaintiff paid the Plaintiff’s non-profit claiming the Defendant’s expression of intent was an investment in the Plaintiff’s C, but the Plaintiff forced the Plaintiff to use the loan as the loan amount.

Therefore, the loan certificate of this case is true and correct.