2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff, as his father’s father’s father, was in an internal relationship with the Defendant, and between them, E (which, although the Plaintiff was a biological child of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff refused to enter the Plaintiff’s name as his own child, and was born at the time of entering an elementary school by the birth report, according to the Defendant’s husband’s legal father at the time of entering the elementary school.).

The above amount shall be borrowed on April 27, 2006 and shall be repaid on April 2008 in 0.8% (1,600,000 won) per month. The interest rate shall be 0.8% per month (1,600,000 won).

Interest shall be paid on the 27th day of each month.

on April 27, 2006 B

B. Around April 27, 2006, the Defendant received a total of KRW 200 million from the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the instant money”). Around April 27, 2006, the Defendant drafted a loan certificate (No. 1-1, hereinafter “the instant loan certificate”) with the following content.

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 (including branch numbers), Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay the loan amount of KRW 200 million and its interest and delay damages to the plaintiff according to the above loan certificate, unless there are special circumstances.

B. As to this, the Defendant merely lent money to the Defendant according to the purpose of assisting the Plaintiff’s life, and did not lend money to the Plaintiff only formally by receiving the instant loan certificate, but also borrowed the instant money from the Plaintiff.

Even if the plaintiff was exempted from this, it is defense to the effect that it was exempted.

In light of the above facts and evidence and the purport of the entire arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 3, 4, and Eul evidence Nos. 3 through 5, the following circumstances acknowledged as a whole. The plaintiff borrowed the money of this case to the defendant of the defendant which the plaintiff was able to use to the defendant, and at the time, the plaintiff would purchase commercial buildings for fixed income to the defendant.