A. If Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 added the purport of the entire pleadings, it is recognized that the defendant borrowed KRW 300 million from the plaintiff, ① on June 16, 2008, ② on December 31, 2008, and ② on July 30, 2008, the due date of payment was 25% per annum and borrowed KRW 100 million per annum.

B. The Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff interest and delay damages calculated by the rate of 25% per annum from June 16, 2008, which is the borrowing date, with respect to the total amount of KRW 400 million and KRW 300 million, and from July 30, 2008, with respect to the remainder of KRW 100 million, with the interest and delay damages calculated by the rate of 25% per annum from July 30, 2008

The plaintiff's claim is justified.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant asserts that, around October 20, 2005, when the defendant purchased the land at Jeju, the plaintiff invested KRW 200 million in the purchase of the land at Jeju, and that, around June 2008, the defendant made 300 million in a notarial deed by making the interest sufficiently sufficient to receive even during the auction and making it possible to receive even during the auction. Thus, it is unfair to claim the defendant for the repayment of the borrowed amount with the original amount exceeding KRW 200 million as the original amount.

B. As long as the authenticity of a disposal document is recognized, the court shall recognize the existence and content of the declaration of intent as stated in the content, unless there is any counter-proof as clear and acceptable to deny the content of the document (see Supreme Court Decision 93Da5456, Oct. 11, 1994), and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the actual amount of debt under each of the above certificates is KRW 200,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

The defendant's above assertion is without merit.