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

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the borrowed amount of KRW 30,000,000 and damages for delay.

2. Determination

A. The key issue is that the Plaintiff cited Gap evidence Nos. 1 (hereinafter “the instant loan certificate”), which is a disposal document, based on his argument, while the Defendant, around 2004, stated the Defendant’s resident registration number and name in blank for the purpose of receiving the winning right, and issued it to the Plaintiff. The remainder is at all known to the Defendant. First, the Plaintiff’s authenticity of the instant loan certificate is examined.

B. Determination 1) A private document is presumed to be authentic when the signature, seal, or seal of the person or his agent is affixed (Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Act). In the event that the person who prepared the private document voluntarily admits that he had affixed his signature and seal on the private document, that is, in the event that the establishment of the portion of the seal imprint, etc. is recognized, the authenticity of the entire document is presumed to have been established unless there are other special circumstances, such as the reversal of such presumption with a counter-proof. If the presumption of the authenticity of the document as a completion document is reversed, and if there are other circumstances, such as filling up the blank document or the portion of the remaining completion, the person who asserts the formation of the document or the person who submitted the document bears the burden of proof as to the supplement of the blank document based on legitimate authority (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da11406, Apr. 11, 2003). The plaintiff and the defendant from the second date of pleading of this case, the resident registration number and the name of the defendant.