A. The plaintiff and D are the same children of E, and the defendant is the children of E.

B. On October 29, 2015, E entered into a lease contract with respect to C and Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F Building G (hereinafter “instant officetel”), setting the deposit amount of KRW 100 million and the lease period from December 18, 2015 to December 18, 2017.

C. On January 13, 2017, E died due to an accident, and the Defendant, who solely inherited the deceased E (hereinafter “the deceased”), agreed with C on the lease contract.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 4, 6, 7

2. The plaintiff asserts that the deceased borrowed KRW 100 million from the plaintiff because it is necessary to pay the instant officetel deposit, and that the defendant, who succeeded to the deceased after the deceased died, confirmed that he/she had the right to pay the above leasehold deposit and transferred the above claim to the plaintiff, the plaintiff is obligated to notify the debtor of the transfer of the above claim.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff could not be recognized that he lent KRW 100 million to the deceased, and that the entry of the loan certificate presented by the plaintiff in the situation where the defendant did not confirm the exact factual relationship has no effect on the assignment of claims, and even if such meaning is interpreted as such, it is an expression of intent by mistake, fraud, or coercion,

3. Determination

A. If the Plaintiff’s loan claim exists and the authenticity of the above document is acknowledged according to Gap’s evidence Nos. 5 (the seal impression of the deceased affixed on the tea, the witness D’s testimony, and the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff had forged the above loan certificate by means of the crypting the deceased’s seal impression immediately after the deceased’s death, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it), Gap’s evidence Nos. 8 through 10 (including the paper number), and witness D’s testimony added the whole purport of the oral argument to the witness D’s testimony, the mother-child of the Plaintiff and the deceased’s wife’s deposit for an officetel lease before the deceased’s death on July 11, 2014.