A. According to the overall purport of evidence Nos. 1 and 3, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 40 million to the Defendant from December 2, 2015 to January 2016 for the purpose of the lease deposit of the Defendant’s office operated by the Defendant, and on January 21, 2016, the Defendant paid KRW 40 million to the Plaintiff at the time of January 22, 2016, the loan certificate No. 1, hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case”).

each fact that the preparation and delivery was made and made shall be recognized.

B. According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff delay damages at the rate of 15% per annum from May 11, 2018 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case sought by the Plaintiff, as the above loan amount of KRW 40,000,000 and after the above payment date, barring special circumstances.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. As to the above, the defendant prepared and delivered the loan certificate of this case to the plaintiff, but it is argued that C has prepared the meaning of the guarantee for borrowing the office lease deposit from the plaintiff, and that C has paid the above money to the plaintiff thereafter.

B. We examine the following circumstances, i.e., the following circumstances acknowledged by adding up the descriptions in Gap evidence No. 2, i.e., (i) so long as a disposal document is recognized as its authenticity, the court should recognize the existence and content of its declaration of intent as stated in the loan certificate of this case, unless there is any clear and acceptable counter-proof that the contents are denied. The loan certificate of this case only contains the content that "the defendant would pay to the plaintiff 40 million won," and there is no statement that "C will pay the plaintiff 40 million won as a guarantee for the obligation to the plaintiff ," and (ii) on October 23, 2015, "C will pay the plaintiff 40 million won up to November 23, 2015."