대여금
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
As the cause of the instant claim, the Plaintiff, on January 10, 201, lent a loan of KRW 400 million to the Defendant on a yearly basis and on May 25, 2015, with a maturity of KRW 25 million, and thereafter, the Plaintiff claimed that only the principal amount of KRW 100 million and interest KRW 50 million were repaid from the Defendant, and that the principal amount was currently KRW 300 million.
In full view of the entries in Gap evidence No. 1 and the purport of the entire pleadings, although the defendant issued to the plaintiff a promissory note as of January 10, 201 at a par value of 400 million won, the place of issue, the place of payment, Seoul and the date of payment, and the date of May 25, 2011, respectively, and prepared and issued a notarial deed as to the said promissory note as the No. 2011 Certificate No. 1, a notary public is not sufficient to acknowledge the fact of lending money of the plaintiff's assertion in light of the following circumstances, the above facts alone are insufficient to acknowledge the fact of lending money of the plaintiff's assertion, and there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge this differently.
Rather, in full view of the statement and the purport of the argument as to Gap's evidence No. 3, Eul borrowed KRW 200 million from Eul on June 1, 2010, and KRW 100 million on August 20, 2010. The defendant, on June 1, 2010, issued the above KRW 200 million to D by forging P Co., Ltd and one promissory note under the name of Eul Co., Ltd. as security for the loan obligation of KRW 100 million on August 20, 2010, under the name of Eul as security for the loan obligation of KRW 100,000,000, KRW 200,000,000, KRW 300,000,000, KRW 100,000,000, KRW 100,000,000, KRW 374,000,00,000.