1. The appeal of the plaintiff succeeding intervenor and the conjunctive claim added at the appeal and trial of the independent party intervenor.

1. The reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the parts added or written by the following paragraph (2). Thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. A portion used for adding or cutting;

A. On the 2nd page of the judgment of the court of first instance, a promissory note identical to the attached Form No. 16 shall be deemed to be “the Promissory Notes identical to the attached Form” (hereinafter “instant Promissory Notes”).

B. On No. 3 of the first instance court ruling, the term “transfer of claims” in Paragraph 11 is regarded as “transfer of claims”.

(c) Forms 3, 15 and 18 of the first instance judgment are as follows.

“A) The independent party intervenor is the final transferee of A’s loan claims and promissory note gold claims against the Defendant, and the assignment contract between the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor and the independent party intervenor cannot be deemed null and void or cancelled.

B) Even if the conclusion of a loan for consumption and the issuance of promissory notes between A and the Defendant are null and void due to a conspiracy, false representation, or abuse of the power of representation by the Defendant’s representative, the Defendant cannot set up against an independent party intervenor acting in good faith on the ground that such invalidation is null and void. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 200 million to an independent party intervenor. Accordingly, the Defendant is obligated to pay an independent party intervenor a loan or promissory note amounting to KRW 200 million without any legal ground due to an invalid loan for consumption, and thereby, the Defendant has a duty to pay an independent party intervenor an unjust enrichment amounting to KRW 20 million

(d) Forms 3, 20 to 5, and 6, of the judgment of the first instance court are as follows.

1) We examine whether A’s loan claim amounting to KRW 200 million against the Defendant was actually established prior to the determination of whether the loan claim was established or not.

A from the account of A to the account of the defendant 20 million won.