A. According to the evidence No. 1 of the basic facts, the Defendant, on April 4, 2015, drafted and issued to the Plaintiff, as the Plaintiff, “B borrowed KRW 33 million from the D apartment purchase fund located in C on April 4, 2015. If the house is sold, I promised to calculate and return dividends according to the profit ratio. In addition, upon request by A, I promised to pay dividends (hereinafter “the instant loan certificate”).

B. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant sold real estate owned by the Defendant and paid KRW 84 million out of the purchase price to the Plaintiff on March 2015. However, the Plaintiff again lent the purchase price of KRW 33,00,000 to the Defendant, which is located outside of Seoul Jung-gu E and one parcel, to the Defendant, and thereafter, the Plaintiff prepared the instant loan certificate stating that the Defendant would pay KRW 33,00,000 to the Plaintiff at any time at the time of the Plaintiff’s free request. Accordingly, the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 33,00,000 to the Plaintiff.

C. We examine whether the Plaintiff loaned KRW 33 million to the Defendant first of the portion of the claim for the loan 1 loan.

The facts that the Defendant borrowed KRW 3,00,000 from the Plaintiff with D apartment purchase funds in the instant loan certificate on April 4, 2015 are as seen earlier, but the Plaintiff did not actually deliver KRW 3,00,000 to the Defendant, that is, the Plaintiff agreed to pay the Plaintiff KRW 84,00,000,000, out of the proceeds of real estate owned by the Defendant, but the Defendant agreed to borrow KRW 33,00,000 from the Plaintiff in order to use the proceeds of purchase of D apartment, including real estate brokerage fees, for the purchase of D apartment. However, according to the record of March 30, 2015, the record is as follows.