A. On August 25, 2015, the Defendant agreed to pay KRW 40,000,000 to the Plaintiff up to December 30, 2015, in return for the Plaintiff to prepare and deliver a written application for no punishment for the Plaintiff detained on suspicion of fraud against the Plaintiff at the time.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 3, result of the plaintiff's principal questioning, purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the agreed amount of KRW 40,000,000 and damages for delay, unless there are special circumstances.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The gist of the claim 1) is that the plaintiff received only from C detained in the detention room that the defendant would repay the amount of 40,000,000 won, which is the damage caused by fraud acquired by the plaintiff to C, and the defendant promptly returned the loan certificate to the plaintiff, and the defendant made a statement that he would pay the above amount to the plaintiff. However, in light of the circumstances surrounding the preparation and delivery of the above loan certificate, the plaintiff claims against the defendant based on the above loan certificate prepared formally in violation of the above agreement. In light of the above circumstances, the above loan certificate was issued and delivered without the intent to bear the same obligation, and the plaintiff, the other party, also was well aware of such circumstances at the time. Accordingly, there was no validity of an agreement to pay the above loan amount as stated in the above loan certificate pursuant to the proviso of Article 107 (1) of the Civil Act. In addition, the defendant's preparation and delivery of the above loan certificate is without any obligation to return the loan certificate to the plaintiff as soon as the defendant received the loan certificate from C, namely.