2. Determination

A. The facts that the loan Plaintiff delivered KRW 10,00,000 to the Defendant around May 2002 are without dispute between the parties. According to the overall purport of the entries and changes in Gap evidence No. 1, the Defendant prepared and delivered the loan certificate (hereinafter "the loan certificate of this case") against the above KRW 10,000,000 delivered by the Plaintiff. However, the Plaintiff appears to have lent KRW 10,00,000 to the Defendant around May 2002 without fixing the due date.

B. In full view of the purport of the argument in Gap evidence No. 3, 14,000 won loan of 14,000 won asserted by the plaintiff, the defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 3,00,000 with respect to criminal facts, and the above summary order was finalized on June 2, 2009, and the defendant paid the full amount of a fine as provided in the above summary order on October 12, 2009, under the Busan District Court Decision 2009 High Court Decision No. 10680, Apr. 28, 2009, which stated that "do not have any intent or ability to repay money to the plaintiff even if he borrowed money from the plaintiff on or around May 2002."

However, the civil trial is not bound by the recognition of facts in the criminal trial, and it is difficult to employ the judgement of facts in the criminal trial in light of other evidence submitted in the civil trial as to the same facts.

in the absence of special circumstances, the court may acknowledge the counterclaim.

Therefore, according to the above facts and the purport of the whole theory of substantial changes in the evidence in this court, the above summary order certified copy was delivered to the defendant on May 11, 2009 by means of public notice delivery, and thereafter, the defendant.