2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The plaintiff filed a complaint against the defendant as a crime of fraud because the defendant did not return the above KRW 40 million. At least, the prosecutor's disposition of the above fraud was made on January 28, 2009 that the plaintiff demanded the return of the above loan to the defendant. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 40 million won and damages for delay from January 29, 2009.

2. According to the records of this case, the Plaintiff and the Defendant may be found to have traded money over several occasions. However, the issue of this case is whether the Plaintiff lent KRW 40 million to the Defendant around July 2005.

According to the statements in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, it can be recognized that the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 40 million from the financial account in D’s name to the check on July 22, 2005, and that the Defendant borrowed KRW 40 million to the Plaintiff on August 13, 2007 (hereinafter “the loan certificate in this case”). However, it is insufficient to recognize that the above facts alone are insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff lent KRW 40 million to the Defendant on July 2005, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Rather, according to the result of this court’s response to the order to submit financial transaction information to the Samho Agricultural Cooperative Head, the endorser of the above KRW 40 million, which was withdrawn as a check from the financial account in the name of D on July 22, 2005, can only be seen as having no relation with the Defendant as E(F) and G(H company.

Furthermore, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff lent KRW 40 million to the Defendant around August 2007, the date of drawing up the loan certificate of this case.

The defendant shall prepare the loan certificate of this case upon request of the plaintiff to show his father.