1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. Determination on the claim for loans of KRW 100,000,000

A. Basic facts 1) On October 24, 2012, the Plaintiff changed its trade name to a limited liability company C (limited company D on August 20, 2012).

hereinafter referred to as “D”

(2) D deposited KRW 100,000,000 in the Plaintiff’s Gwangju Bank account on November 7, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 (including a provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

B. The Plaintiff’s assertion asserts that on October 24, 2012, the Plaintiff lent KRW 200,000,000 to the Defendant’s bank account designated by the Defendant, and that on October 24, 2012, the Plaintiff was paid KRW 100,000,000 out of the above loan amounting to KRW 200,000,000,000, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the remainder of the loan amounting to KRW 100,000,000

C. We examine the following circumstances, i.e., the evidence mentioned above and evidence Nos. 4, 6, and 7 comprehensively considering the overall purport of the pleadings, i.e., the representative director of D, E or the defendant, who actually runs the above company (Evidence Nos. 6, 7-6), and 2, the plaintiff filed a fraudulent complaint against the defendant as to the above KRW 100,000,000 and was subject to a non-prosecution on December 10, 2015. However, the reasons for non-prosecution merely listened to F's horses and lent KRW 200,000 to the plaintiff, but the defendant did not intend to use or take over its money from the plaintiff, and the defendant appears to have used the above KRW 200,000 to pay the above KRW 00,000 to the plaintiff, and the defendant could have used the above KRW 200,000 to pay the above KRW 00,000 by borrowing the above KRW 20,000.