2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

After that, on October 23, 2006, the defendant repaid the above KRW 28.65 million among the above KRW 50 million, and prepared a receipt (Evidence A2) for the remainder of KRW 2,1350,000.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the remaining loan 2,1350,000 won and damages for delay from October 24, 2006 to the plaintiff.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant recognized the above 1-25 million won loan and prepared a promissory note (Evidence A (Evidence A (Evidence A) to the Plaintiff is not disputed between the parties, but the above loan seems to have been fully repaid on October 23, 2006.

B. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the loan of KRW 25 million.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendant prepared and delivered a promissory note (No. 9) equivalent to the borrowed amount at the time of the borrowing, and on October 23, 2006, the receipt (No. 2) for the remaining amount of KRW 2,1350,000,000. However, there is no dispute between the parties that the above promissory note and the receipt cannot be recognized as the authenticity (the seal attached to the defendant's name of each of the above documents is based on the defendant's seal). However, according to the result of appraisal by the party appraiser G, each of the above documents appears to have been written by C with the defendant's signature and the seal affixed by the defendant, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that C had a legitimate authority to represent the defendant at the time of the seal affixed. Accordingly, each of the above documents cannot be deemed to have been written by the defendant's intent).

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim based on the premise that the defendant borrowed the above 2 loans from the plaintiff is without merit.

C. The plaintiff.