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

A. On or around March 2008 or around April 2008, the Defendant borrowed KRW 40 million, which is the sum of KRW 20 million, KRW 4.2 million on June 4, 2008, and KRW 15.8 million on June 14, 2008 from the Plaintiff. On June 14, 2008, the Defendant prepared and issued to the Plaintiff a certificate of borrowing that sets forth the above KRW 40 million as the principal borrowed and the interest at KRW 40 million as 4% per month.

However, since the defendant did not pay the above loan, it is obligated to pay the plaintiff the interest rate of 40 million won and 25% per annum on the loan.

B. The defendant, who operated the defendant's clothes repair shop, sold the goods of multi-level company entrusted by the plaintiff to his customers on behalf of the defendant. At the plaintiff's request, the plaintiff prepared a loan certificate under the name of the certificate of storage of the goods equivalent to the value of the goods entrusted by the plaintiff to the defendant, but did not borrow KRW 40 million from the plaintiff actually.

2. Determination

A. The facts of the requirements for the claim for return of loans are the conclusion of a loan contract for consumption, the delivery of an object, and the arrival of the time of return, and the facts of the requirements for the claim for interest under the agreement are the occurrence of original bonds, the interest agreement, the delivery

In addition, as long as the authenticity of a disposal document is recognized, the court should recognize the existence and content of the declaration of intent in accordance with the content of the document, but if there is a clear and acceptable reflective evidence that denies the content of the statement, it can recognize facts different from the content of the statement.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da56616, Nov. 11, 2010). B.

First of all, according to the judgment on the instant case, Gap evidence No. 1 (the authenticity is recognized by the result of the written appraisal by appraiser C, appraiser C), the fact that the Defendant, on June 14, 2008, prepared and delivered a dispositive document stating that the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 40 million from the Plaintiff at the interest rate of 4% per month can be recognized.

However, the disputes between the parties.