A. On March 16, 2017, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 30 million to a financial account in the name of C, and on the same day, Defendant representative D prepared a loan certificate (No. 2, hereinafter “instant primary certificate”) with the purport that the Plaintiff would repay the said KRW 30 million to the Plaintiff by April 15, 2017.

B. On April 10, 2017, the Plaintiff received a loan certificate (No. 3, hereinafter “instant secondary loan certificate”) from E as follows.

B E 【Ground for recognition” without any dispute, entry in Gap evidence 1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. 1) The plaintiff's assertion 1) The plaintiff sought the return of the plaintiff's total amount of KRW 80 million since it lent to the defendant. 2) The defendant's assertion D merely was registered as the defendant representative director under F's direction E by F's chairperson E, and did not have any fact of performing his/her duties as the defendant's representative director, and it was not well aware of the fact

On the other hand, the first certificate of this case was signed and sealed by E, and the second certificate of this case was not prepared.

B. Determination 1) As long as the loan disposition document stated in the first certificate of loan in this case is genuine, it is not allowed to deny the probative value of the disposition document unless there is any special reason to deny the probative value of the disposition document (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 89Meu10484, Nov. 10, 1989; Defendant representative D signed and sealed the corporate seal after signing on the first certificate of loan in accordance with E’s instructions. Thus, barring special circumstances, the Defendant calculated the Plaintiff at a rate of 12% per annum as stipulated in the Commercial Act from April 16, 2017 to July 23, 2020, the delivery date of the copy of the complaint in this case from the next day to the date of maturity, and the following day to the date of full payment.