A. On May 8, 2008 between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, a notary public of May 8, 2008, stating that “the Plaintiff shall set out and lend KRW 210,000,000 to the Defendant on May 8, 2008 at a rate of 30% per annum for delay on August 8, 2008,” was written a notarial deed (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) of 2008, 208, which sent KRW 190,000 to the Defendant’s national bank account on the same day by the Plaintiff, or the Defendant’s assertion that the notarial deed of this case was forged, but this is not inconsistent with the Defendant’s assertion that the notarial deed of this case was written without facing the Plaintiff (the preparatory document of March 28, 2019), and there is no evidence to acknowledge the facts inconsistent with the Defendant’s assertion that the notarial deed of this case was forged.”

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 50,000,000 won among the loan amounts under the notarial deed of this case and 30% per annum from August 9, 2008 to April 20, 2018, and 15% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

(However, the plaintiff sought payment of damages for delay from August 8, 2008, but if there is no payment until the payment has been made, the liability for delay occurs from the following day, and therefore, the claim for damages for delay that occurred from August 8, 2008 is without merit). 2. The defendant's claim on August 8, 2008 is without merit.

A. The defendant asserts that E prepared the instant notarial deed or lent it to the account in the course of acquiring money from the plaintiff, and it is not a real debtor for a loan.

B. In light of the following circumstances, Gap evidence Nos. 4-2, 5, 7 and Eul evidence Nos. 1-2, 5, and 1-2, the defendant's legal effect is sought.