1. The plaintiff's primary claim added in the trial is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

3...

1. Basic facts

A. On March 31, 2008, the Plaintiff (registration of credit business on September 15, 2005) determined the due date for payment to C (D prior to the opening of the name) who operated LbC as 5% (2 million won) and lent KRW 40 million to C (B prior to the opening of the name).

(hereinafter “the instant loan”). At the time, at the bottom of the loan certificate prepared by C, the Defendant’s resident registration number and name are indicated, and the seal is stamped.

B. On November 20, 2008, C prepared a notarial deed of a monetary loan agreement for consumption and loan with the purport that “A notary public would make a creditor F and repay the instant loan by December 31, 2008,” under the E-Law Office No. 2113, 2008, to the Plaintiff.”

(hereinafter referred to as “instant authentic deed”). C.

C On November 7, 2015, with respect to the instant loan, on November 7, 2015, the Plaintiff prepared a written confirmation to pay KRW 5 million up to the end of November 2015, and KRW 5 million up to the end of April 2016.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap Nos. 1, 3, 7, and Eul No. 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the main claim

A. Although the summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion C borrowed the instant loan, the Defendant did not have the ability to repay the loan, the Defendant, as if he continued to operate a dan and was able to pay the loan of this case by acquiring profits with stocks, deceiving the Plaintiff as if he could have been able to pay the loan of this case, and the Plaintiff, which

In addition, the defendant tried to evade compulsory execution by changing the name of the entertainment bar in the name of another person.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff 40 million won and damages for delay due to the tort.

B. We examine the judgment, and comprehensively consider all the evidence shown in the argument of this case, the defendant deceivings the plaintiff.

It is insufficient to recognize that there was a evasion of compulsory execution or a evasion of compulsory execution, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, so the Plaintiff’s above assertion is further examined.