1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the following, thereby citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The addition;

A. The Defendants’ assertion that Defendant A received money from the Plaintiff is not a loan but a loan.

In addition, since the amount of loans claimed by the Plaintiff is different from the amount actually deposited into Defendant A account, the amount of loans claimed by the Plaintiff shall not be recognized as it is.

B. The court should recognize the existence and content of an expression of intent as stated in the statement, unless there is any counter-proof as clear and acceptable to deny the contents of the statement, so long as the determination document is recognized as the authenticity of its contents.

(2) In light of the above legal principles, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to each of the loans in this case’s loans in this case’s loans in this case’s loans in this case’s loans in this case’s loans in this case’s loans in this case’s loans in this case’s loans in this case’s loans in this case’s loans in this case’s loans in this case’s loans in this case’s loans in this case’s loans in this case’s loans in this case’s loans in this case’s loans in this case’s loans in this case’s loans in this case’s loans

Rather, even based on the above evidence and evidence Nos. 12 and 17, Defendant A asserted that “the Plaintiff returned the loan amount of KRW 40 million to the Plaintiff” from the preparatory document dated March 29, 2017, and Defendant A, who was the former representative director of Defendant A, made a statement to the Plaintiff at the investigative agency that he was liable for the Plaintiff’s debt amounting to approximately KRW 160 million and received a significant demand for repayment, and that Defendant B was also liable for the Plaintiff’s debt amounting to the Plaintiff at the investigative agency. The former representative director of Defendant B also made a statement to the effect that Defendant B, who was the former representative director, had been liable for the Plaintiff’s debt amounting to the Plaintiff.