A. According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 1, it is recognized that the defendant prepared and delivered to the plaintiff on June 1, 201 the loan certificate stating that "the defendant borrowed KRW 200 million from the plaintiff on June 1, 201 as the pre-household of apartment."

According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20 million won per annum from February 6, 2014 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the day when the original copy of the payment order stating the plaintiff's declaration of intent to recover the loan was served on the defendant, unless there are special circumstances.

B. As to this, the defendant asserts that he merely borrowed KRW 160 million from the plaintiff as the pre-household deposit.

However, if the authenticity of a disposal document is recognized, the court shall, in principle, recognize the existence and content of the declaration of intent as stated in the disposal document, unless there is any clear and acceptable counter-proof that the content of the statement is denied. In the event there is any difference in the interpretation of a contract between the parties and the interpretation of the intent of the parties expressed in the disposal document is at issue, the court shall reasonably interpret it in accordance with logical and empirical rules by comprehensively taking into account the contents of the language and text, the motive and background leading up to such agreement, the purpose to be achieved by the agreement, the parties’ genuine intent, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Da58728, May 13, 201). The fact that the Defendant prepared and delivered the above loan certificate to the Plaintiff is as seen above and delivered by the Defendant. Thus, it is reasonable to determine that the Defendant borrowed KRW 200 million to the Plaintiff as stated in the above loan certificate.

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of reimbursement.