Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

A. The defendant is a corporation established for the purpose of assembly construction of buildings, steel reinforced concrete construction business, etc.

B. The Defendant entered into an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “Agreement”) and the Defendant contracted the construction work of the Y E-U, located in the Sound Group D from Chungcheong C in around 2002.

2) On January 29, 2005, the Plaintiff and the Defendant: (a) prepared the receipt of the instant receipt (hereinafter “instant receipt”) with the following content; and (b) obtained the authentication from the public law firm No. 594, F, etc., as the F, etc. No. 2005.

E The number of acceptance certificates of the Dopary Bill: 500 above Dopary Bill shall be transferred to the president as a repayment of borrowed money.

In addition, the settlement will be made after the loan is repaid.

on January 29, 2005: the transferor: the defendant H (person) 3 of the defendant representative director of the Daegu-gu G, Daegu-gu, the defendant is obligated to pay the document of salary to Eul in return for the repayment of the substitute for the construction cost to E in 2018.

Appellant’s assertion that the Defendant’s claim for withdrawal of the deposited goods as indicated in the Appendix 2 attached hereto was confirmed, and that the custodian of the deposited goods has the right to claim withdrawal against the deposited goods, and that the custodian of the deposited goods has filed a lawsuit against “the claim” (Article 2018 of the Daegu District Court 210298), and that the said court confirmed that the claim for withdrawal against the deposited goods as indicated in the Appendix 1 attached hereto was the Defendant, and that the custodian of the deposited goods has the right to claim withdrawal against the deposited goods as indicated in the Appendix 1, and that the procedures for notifying the intention have been implemented.

The decision on the recommendation for reconciliation of the content of this case(hereinafter referred to as the "decision on the recommendation for reconciliation of this case") was made, and the decision on the recommendation was confirmed around that time.

[Ground for Recognition: Unsatisfy, Entry of Evidence A Nos. 1 through 4, Purport of the whole pleadings]

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff lent KRW 50 million to the Defendant around 2002, but the Defendant was unable to repay the above loan, and the Plaintiff transferred KRW 500 as a result of the repayment of the above loan on January 29, 2005, E’s salary certificate 500 (hereinafter “instant salary certificate”).