A. On June 22, 2010, the Plaintiff issued a cashier’s check to the Defendant at KRW 100,000,000 issued on the same day (the Plaintiff endorsed his name on the back of the above cashier’s check; hereinafter “the instant cashier’s check”), and the Defendant endorsed his name on the back of the instant cashier’s check and affixed his seal.

B. On the foregoing day, the Defendant entered “C Apartment D’s purchase price of KRW 19 million” and issued a receipt on which the Defendant signed (hereinafter “the receipt”) to the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff lent KRW 100,000,000 to the Defendant on June 22, 2010 equivalent to the face value of cashier’s checks.

On the contrary, while the defendant acknowledges that the receipt of this case is the defendant's self-written statement, the defendant argued that the above receipt is not an memory as to the above receipt or the cashier's check of this case. However, the entry of this case's receipt is consistent with the plaintiff's assertion as to the reason for the loan of this case, that is, the defendant lent money by promising the plaintiff to transfer the apartment house received as payment for the construction price, and the defendant does not specifically dispute over the back of the cashier's check of this case's check of this case. In full view of the above, it is reasonable to view that the above

However, the Plaintiff asserted that, in addition to KRW 100,000,000, the cash of KRW 9,000,000 on the same day was additionally given to the Defendant, the Plaintiff lent KRW 109,000 to the Defendant. However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is difficult to recognize that the Plaintiff lent KRW 9,00,000 by cash delivery to the Defendant.