A. From October 1, 2003, the Defendant served as the representative director of E (hereinafter “E”) a corporation operating a golf practice range or golf club (hereinafter “the instant golf club”) within the consortium in Namyang-si, Namyang-si. The Plaintiff was in office as planning director of E from January 2004 to December 2006, and E was deemed dissolved on December 1, 2009 pursuant to Article 520-2(1) of the Commercial Act.

B. On December 30, 2006, the defendant issued a cash loan certificate to the plaintiff on December 30, 2006, stating that "the 300 million won is regularly borrowed" (hereinafter "the loan certificate of this case").

(A) prepare and deliver a document / [based on recognition] unsatisfy, evidence A Nos. 1, 4, and 5 (if any, including a serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply)

each entry, the purport of the whole pleading

2. The parties' assertion

A. On December 2005, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff loaned the amount of KRW 300 million to the Defendant, including KRW 50 million on December 18, 2005, and KRW 250 million on December 12, 2005, upon receipt of a request from the Defendant to lend funds necessary for the construction of a golf course, etc., and received the instant loan certificate after lending it to the Defendant.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the above loan 300 million won and damages for delay to the plaintiff.

B. The Defendant’s assertion did not have borrowed KRW 300 million from the Plaintiff at the above point of time. From 2004 to 2006, a sum of KRW 457 million borrowed from the Plaintiff as operating funds, but the amount of the Defendant’s obligation to the Plaintiff is limited to KRW 1,434,00,00,000, out of which the Plaintiff paid KRW 44,2360,000, and the amount of the Defendant’s obligation to the Plaintiff is limited to KRW 1,434,00,00,000. The instant loan certificate was merely drafted by considering that the instant funds borrowed from the Plaintiff would amount to KRW 30,000 upon the Plaintiff’s request.

3. Determination

A. As long as a disposal document is recognized as the authenticity of its contents, the court shall do not have any counter-proof as clear and acceptable to deny its contents.