A. On October 14, 2010, the Defendant drafted to the Plaintiff a certificate of borrowing (hereinafter “certificate of borrowing of this case”) stating “150,000,000 won with the principal, 2% per annum (24% per annum, 13% per month), and December 14, 2010 with the principal due date.”

B. On November 10, 2010, the Defendant drafted to the Plaintiff a loan certificate stating “20,000,000 won, and on December 10, 201,” etc. (hereinafter “the instant loan certificate”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff lent KRW 170,000,000 to the Defendant on October 14, 2010, and KRW 20,000,000 on November 10, 2010 (hereinafter “instant money”).

In this regard, the Defendant did not have received the instant money from the Plaintiff, and even if having received the said money, it did not claim that the said money was not only the Plaintiff’s investment money but also the loan.

B. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively considering the above facts of recognition and the respective evidence as well as the purport of the entire pleadings in the statements in Nos. 1 through 10, the fact that the Plaintiff leased KRW 24,000,000 to the Defendant on October 14, 2010 as interest rate of KRW 24% per annum and December 14, 2010 due date, and that the Plaintiff lent KRW 20,000,000 on November 10, 201 to the Defendant on December 10 of the same year.

① The loan certificate of this case and the loan certificate of this case are clear as disposal documents, and so long as disposal documents are deemed to be authentic, the court shall recognize the existence of legal acts in its contents, barring any special circumstances as clear and acceptable to deny the contents of the statement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da38602, Oct. 13, 200). According to the contents of the loan certificate of this case, according to the contents of the loan certificate of this case, the Defendant borrowed KRW 150,000 from the Plaintiff, according to the contents of the loan certificate of this case.