A. In full view of the respective descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 4 and 5 and the purport of the entire arguments by appraiser D of this court, the defendant borrowed 0 million won to the plaintiff on May 8, 2013.

The loan certificate stating "(A) was prepared and issued (No. 4-1), and 2.0 million won was borrowed.

On June 7, 2013, I borrowed a loan certificate and “land0 million won.”

The fact that: (a) prepared a loan certificate stating “I, on June 23, 2013,” along with the same paper (“I, on June 23, 2013”; and (b) prepared a loan certificate stating “I, on July 23, 2015, borrow 80 million won”; and (c) is recognized.”

B. Regarding this, although the defendant's evidence Nos. 4-1 and 2-1 and 4-1's evidence Nos. 4-1's "3" and "No. 4-2's evidence No. 4-1's "No. 1" were altered, and Gap evidence No. 5's evidence No. 4-2's "No. 23, 2013" were not prepared by the defendant. However, according to the appraiser D's appraisal of this court, it is impossible to assess whether the defendant's statement No. 4-1 and No. 2's bill No. 4-1 and No. 2's bill (the part alleged to be altered by the defendant) cannot be clearly identified with several storm, or it is extremely simple with Gap evidence No. 5's character, it is acknowledged that the defendant's name stated in the evidence No. 5 can be viewed as the same fingerprints as the defendant's well-written evidence No. 301,000,000 won as the plaintiff's evidence No. 2. 106.10