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

The plaintiff and the defendant are the son and woman between the plaintiff and the defendant, among the son and son, and the defendant are the son and woman between C and D.

The Defendant: (a) borrowed KRW 10,000,000 from the Plaintiff on June 25, 2007 to repay until October 31, 2007 (hereinafter “certificate of borrowing KRW 10,000,000”); (b) without specifying the date of borrowing and the name of the obligee, the Defendant prepared a certificate of borrowing that the Defendant would repay KRW 40,000,000 by October 30, 207 (hereinafter “certificate of borrowing KRW 40,000,000”; and (c) when mentioning these two copies of the certificate of borrowing, the Defendant possessed the respective certificate of borrowing of this case.

[Grounds for recognition] No dispute exists. The plaintiff's assertion by the party to the judgment as to the grounds for a claim as to Gap's evidence Nos. 1 and 2 and the grounds for a claim as a whole of the pleadings shall be lent KRW 10,00,000 on June 25, 2007, and KRW 40,000,000 on July 27, 2007 to the defendant, and the plaintiff did not receive any loan of this case from the defendant, but did not receive any payment.

The Plaintiff’s lending KRW 50,000,000 in total to the Defendant at the intervals of this month is that the Defendant purchased KRW 100 square meters on the flat land at KRW 300,000 on the flat and lent the purchase fund to the Defendant.

The money that the Plaintiff lent to the Plaintiff was ordered by the Korea Trade Co., Ltd. that newly purchased the building in the course of operating the danran bar in the trade name called E, and the Plaintiff received KRW 50,000,000 by adding up the money for the premium to KRW 30,00,000 as a check, and then kept this check for two years.

피고의 주장 10,000,000원 차용증은 어머니 D가 원고의 중개로 돈을 빌린 것에 대해 원고가 심하게 변제독촉하여 피고가 어머니 대신 갚아주기로 하고 작성한 것이나 그 후 모두 변제하였고, 차용증 반환 요구에 대해 원고는 깜빡 잊고 안 가져왔다고 둘러대다가 찢어버렸다고 이야기하여 피고는 이를 그대로...