A. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire argument in Gap evidence No. 1 as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the above loan amount of KRW 30,000,000 and delay damages, barring any special circumstance, since it is acknowledged that the defendant borrowed KRW 30,000 from the plaintiff on November 1, 207 (hereinafter "the loan certificate of this case").

On the other hand, the Plaintiff asserts that he additionally lent KRW 9,500,000 to the Defendant on November 9, 2007, and sought the payment of the said money against the Defendant.

We examine the plaintiff's above assertion, and there is no evidence to prove the plaintiff's above assertion. Thus, we cannot accept the plaintiff's above assertion.

(B) In full view of the purport of the entire argument in the statement No. 3, the Plaintiff is deemed to have remitted KRW 9,750,000 to a passbook under the name of the Defendant’s attached to C, but in light of the fact that the Plaintiff exchanged money with the Defendant in the name of Tong C several times as seen below, the above facts alone are insufficient to recognize the Plaintiff’s assertion.

The Defendant’s assertion 1) The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff brought the instant lawsuit for the extension of the extinctive prescription period of the previous application for payment order (Seoul District Court Decision 2008Hu7715, Nov. 10, 198), and that the amount of remittance for each date indicated as the cause of the claim for the previous payment order is not the loan but the amount invested by the Plaintiff to D and E, and thus, the Plaintiff cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s request. The Defendant’s submission of the disposition document is not allowed unless there is any special reason to deny the probative value of the disposition document as long as it is recognized that the disposition document is authentic (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 89Meu10484, Nov. 10, 1989; see, e., Articles 3 and 4).