3. The loan amounting to KRW 25 million, total of KRW 36 million was drawn up with a loan certificate (Evidence A) and sought the return of the loan.

The defendant, as the representative director of C, received the expenses necessary for the export of the plaintiff's street lamps (the expenses necessary for the registration of the product to the Indonesia Public Procurement Service and obtaining the certificate), and prepared a formal loan certificate according to the plaintiff's request (the plaintiff's subordinate business, must show that the procedure for the registration of the products of the Indonesian Public Procurement Service is in progress) and denies the loan.

The summary court of the procedure examined documentary evidence submitted by both parties while proceeding the second date for pleading (the pleading was not in progress effectively on the first date for pleading, and thus, tried to concentrate on pleadings by designating the date for preparatory pleading pursuant to Article 279(2) of the Civil Procedure Act after the first date for pleading). The issues of the case, i.e., whether the money issued by the Plaintiff to the Defendant constitutes a loan, was caused by the following judgment.

According to the reasoning of Gap evidence Nos. 3 through 6, the plaintiff transferred the total amount of KRW 36 million to the defendant four times, as argued by the plaintiff.

In addition, on March 27, 2019, the last remittance date, the defendant issued and delivered the loan certificate to the plaintiff as follows:

A With respect to a disposition document prepared by the defendant as above, the court shall recognize the existence and content of the declaration of intent in accordance with the contents, unless there is any clear and acceptable counter-proof evidence that denies its contents.

If so, the defendant's assertion and the counter-statement are the above loan certificate.