A. On August 6, 2014, the Defendant drafted a certificate of borrowing that KRW 2% of interest per month, interest rate of KRW 5,000,000 per month, interest rate of KRW 2.5% per month, and due date of repayment on February 28, 2015 (hereinafter “the instant certificate of borrowing”).

B. On February 25, 2015, the Defendant: (a) filed a bankruptcy and application for immunity with the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2015Hadan1632, 2015Ma1632; (b) declared bankrupt on September 10, 2015; and (c) received a decision to grant immunity on September 24, 2015; and (d) on October 13, 2015, the said decision to grant immunity became final and conclusive; and (c) the instant claim was not entered in the list of creditors.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserted that since the plaintiff lent KRW 5,00,000 to the defendant, the defendant is obligated to pay the above KRW 5,000,000 to the plaintiff, and the defendant borrowed the above money from C other than the plaintiff, and even if the plaintiff borrowed the loan of this case from the plaintiff, the defendant is exempted from immunity, and thus the defendant is exempted from immunity.

B. Determination 1) The following circumstances, which are acknowledged by adding up the evidence incurred prior to the occurrence of the obligation to pay the loan and the purport of Gap evidence 2, namely, the loan certificate of this case stated C’s account in the interest payment account and the principal repayment account (where C lends the above money, the creditor’s column should also be stated C. However, the loan certificate of this case is written in the creditor column; the plaintiff holds a certificate of personal seal issued directly by the defendant at the time of drawing up the loan certificate of this case; the defendant also holds a certificate of personal seal issued directly by the plaintiff at the place where the loan of this case was received; and there is no evidence to acknowledge that C claimed the return of the loan against the defendant.