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

A. On October 25, 2016, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant paid KRW 14,420,000 to the Plaintiff, but the Defendant paid KRW 2,00,000 per month from November 10, 2016 to KRW 10,00 per month, and where the Plaintiff did not pay at one time, the Plaintiff prepared a certificate of borrowing that the Plaintiff would transfer the motor vehicle indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant motor vehicle”) owned by the Defendant to the Plaintiff (Evidence 1; hereinafter “the instant loan certificate”).

However, since the Defendant did not pay the installment payment according to the loan certificate of this case and lost the benefit of time, the Defendant is obligated to transfer the instant automobile to the Plaintiff according to the loan certificate of this case.

B. The Defendant asserted from April 2016, the Defendant used the Plaintiff’s quasi-credit card for living expenses, etc. among the Plaintiff, who was in an illegitimate relationship with the Plaintiff that was the father-Nam.

The plaintiff's wife is doubtful of the use of the credit card in this case, so it is necessary to vindicate, and the plaintiff's wife demands to prepare a loan certificate formally in order to show it to the plaintiff's wife.

Accordingly, while the Defendant prepared the debtor column of the loan certificate of this case, he suspended the preparation of the loan certificate and left it up, and the Plaintiff arbitrarily stated the date of payment and the date of preparation.

Therefore, the defendant did not borrow KRW 14,420,00 to the plaintiff, and it is not effective as it was discarded while prepared at the request of the plaintiff of the loan certificate of this case.

2. According to the following facts or circumstances, Gap evidence Nos. 2 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5 and the purport of the entire arguments, the loan certificate of this case is destroyed by the defendant while the defendant was prepared for the purpose of showing 14,420,000 won to the plaintiff's wife at the plaintiff's request even though the defendant did not borrow 14,420,000 won from the plaintiff, and its validity cannot be recognized. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is

1. South-North Korea Plaintiff