2...

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant only dispute the amount of loans on January 12, 2012, and the Plaintiff lent the same amount as that indicated in the following table to the Defendant. It does not dispute the fact that the Defendant repaid the Plaintiff the same amount as that indicated in the following table.

B. Therefore, the key issue of the instant case is whether the amount that the Plaintiff lent to the Defendant on January 12, 2012 is 200 million won as the Plaintiff’s assertion or whether it causes 100 million won as the Defendant’s assertion.

On January 12, 2011, KRW 100,000,000 won, KRW 100,000 won, KRW 100,000,000 won, KRW 100,000,000 won (Plaintiff’s assertion) KRW 200,000,000 won ( KRW 10,000,000 won, KRW 100,000,00 won on September 13, 2012, KRW 100,000,00 KRW 30,000,000 won on October 8, 2012, KRW 300,000,00 won, KRW 300,000,000 won on February 13, 2013, KRW 300,000,00 won, KRW 300,000,00 won on KRW 300,000,00 won.

2. Determination

A. According to the statement No. 1-1, the Plaintiff may recognize the fact that the Plaintiff lent KRW 200 million to the Defendant on January 12, 2012, and there is no reflective proof.

B. On the other hand, the Plaintiff initially lent KRW 100 million to the Defendant on May 27, 2010, and again lent KRW 100 million to the Defendant on January 12, 2012, and argued that the sum of each of the above loans was 200 million won loan certificate No. 1 (Evidence No. 1-1) written by the Defendant.

(1) The court below held that the confession was not true and due to mistake, and thus, the confession was lawfully revoked by the plaintiff's declaration of intention of revocation at the first day of pleading of the court below.

1. The defendant shall be in the trial of the Bank of Korea, and the South capital market.