2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. According to the purport of Eul evidence No. 1 and the whole pleadings, the defendant issued and delivered a loan certificate on October 15, 2004, stating that "50 million won was borrowed and the repayment date was to be made by adding interest at the rate of 5% per month to the principal" (hereinafter "the loan certificate in this case") to the plaintiff on October 15, 2004. The loan certificate in this case is accompanied by the defendant's personal seal impression issued by the defendant himself/herself. The loan certificate in this case must recognize the existence of the expression of intent and its contents in accordance with the language stated in the case where the authenticity is recognized as a disposal document (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da1013, Jan. 21, 200; 500,000 won to the defendant on October 15, 2004; 2000,000 won to the plaintiff on May 13, 200, 2005.

B. As to this, the defendant did not borrow KRW 500,00,000 from the plaintiff, but the plaintiff prepared and made the loan certificate of this case in conspiracy with the plaintiff's request as soon as the plaintiff was urgently required, and thus, it was invalid as a false conspiracy. However, if a certain expression of intent is asserted as invalid as a false conspiracy with a false conspiracy, the defendant is responsible for proving the fact corresponding to such ground (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da39617, Jul. 12, 2007). Since the loan certificate of this case did not submit any objective evidence supporting the defendant's assertion that the loan certificate of this case was prepared formally without the intention to bear the obligation, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense of extinctive prescription

A. The defendant's loans of this case shall be extended.