A. 1) In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as to the grounds for the claim Nos. 1 and 2, the Plaintiff remitted total of KRW 12,087 million to the Defendant from February 2, 2006 to May 2006, and the Defendant borrowed KRW 128 million from the Plaintiff on July 9, 2015 (see attached Form A No. 1; hereinafter referred to as “the instant loan certificate”).

(2) The Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 128 million as stated in the instant loan certificate and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from March 30, 2017 to the date of full payment, following the day on which the Defendant received a claim for the payment of the amount of KRW 128 million as stated in the instant loan certificate, to the day of full payment.

B. As to the Defendant’s argument, the Defendant merely received KRW 110,00,00 from the Plaintiff as the purchase price for the office of a licensed real estate agent, and delivered it to the seller, and the remainder of money was transferred as the office’s operating expenses, etc., and did not borrow money, and the Plaintiff merely borrowed the instant loan certificate at an intentional responsibility with the intent to introduce a licensed real estate agent’s office by promising not to hold any legal responsibility. (2) However, insofar as the authenticity of the disposal document is recognized as the authenticity of the disposal document, the court should recognize the existence and content of the expression of intent as stated unless there is any clear and acceptable counter-proof to deny the contents of the statement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da67602, 67619, Jul. 9, 2009). The materials submitted by the Defendant cannot be viewed as clear and acceptable by the Plaintiff’s deception.