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 judgment of the court of first instance cited in the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the part concerning “judgment on the Defendant’s assertion” in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, as set forth in paragraph (2), is the same as that of the judgment

2. Determination as to the defendant's assertion

A. The Defendant’s assertion that C has invested KRW 250,00,000 to D Agricultural Partnership (hereinafter “Corporation”) in which C is the representative director, and the instant cash storage certificate was prepared in the course of the corporation’s acquisition to E.

The Defendant did not confirm the cash custody certificate of this case without any debt relationship with the Plaintiff, and prepared it as a bad faith, and the Plaintiff also knew of such circumstances, and thus, the cash custody certificate of this case is null and void in accordance with the proviso of Article 107(1) of the Civil Act.

In addition, the above 250,000,000 won is an investment in a juristic person, not a loan or an agreed amount, and the Plaintiff renounced the above investment amount of KRW 250,000,00 in the process of acquiring by a juristic person, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant was extinguished due to the subsidiary nature.

B. The above circumstance alleged by the Defendant alone is difficult to view that the cash custody certificate of this case was prepared by an unsatisfic intent, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

In addition, the plaintiff does not seek the return of the investment amount to the corporation, but seeks the agreed amount based on the cash custody certificate of this case. The original amount paid by the plaintiff to the corporation is the investment amount, and the amount based on the cash custody certificate of this case does not constitute the investment amount.

Furthermore, the Plaintiff’s waiver of the claim for the return of investment funds to a corporation cannot be deemed to have extinguished the claim for the agreed amount based on the cash custody certificate of this case solely on such circumstance, and there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

The above argument of the defendant is without merit.

3. Conclusion, the first instance judgment is justifiable.

The defendant's appeal is justified.