2. Defendant’s defense of repayment

A. According to the statements Nos. 1 and 2-1 and 2 of the evidence Nos. 1-2, it is recognized that the Defendant deposited the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s corresponding passbook C as follows:

Serial 1 2012-04-26 2,00,000 C 2,000,000 2201-01-31,200, 3,2000 Plaintiff A3,200,000 3,200, 3,2000-13, 14,000 C 17,200,000 C 17,200,000 4 2013-08-09 1,300,300 C 18,500,500 C 2016-10,000,000 10-10,000,00 C10-10,000,00 C10,500, 207-207-10,000-20, 208,000-30,205

B. As to this, the Plaintiff asserts that, among the money deposited by the Defendant in C as the passbook, KRW 10,50,000,000 from the money deposited by C would not be repaid for the loan of this case. However, the Plaintiff prepared a promissory note with the Defendant that does not have a form of one-day form with the Defendant, but C did not receive a separate loan certificate due to its pro rata with the Defendant.

According to the overall purport of the statements and arguments by evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 1-1 of evidence Nos. 1, C, upon receipt of a request for a loan of KRW 43 million from the defendant who was known to the general public, requested the plaintiff to lend to the plaintiff again, and the plaintiff received a promissory note causing KRW 32,500,000 from the defendant on March 10, 201, and remitted KRW 32,50,000 to the defendant. On the same day, C also remitted KRW 10,50,000 to the defendant's passbook.

On March 10, 201, the defendant entered the office of a certified judicial scrivener with approximately 10,50,000 won on March 10, 201, when the defendant operated the company C, and viewed the work as a certified judicial scrivener office, and C changed the management of its staff, and for several months, such as personnel management, official festing, field supervision, etc.