1. The judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. If the purport of the whole pleadings is added to Gap evidence No. 1, Gap evidence No. 2-1, No. 2-1, and No. 4-2, the defendant borrowed 10 million won from the plaintiff on May 11, 2006 and decided to repay 60 million won in 20,000 won from the next day to July 22, 2006. The defendant borrowed 5 million won from the plaintiff on May 12, 2006 and borrowed 5 million won from the plaintiff on July 24, 2006 and decided to pay 10,000 won in 60,000 won from the next day to July 24, 2006.

Meanwhile, until June 8, 2006, the Plaintiff was paid 4.8 million won out of the above 10 million won by the Defendant, and 2.3 million won out of the above 5 million won.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the defendant is liable to pay to the plaintiff 7.9 million won [=(10 million won - 4.8 million won) (5 million won - 2.3 million won)] and interest or delay damages.

B. The defendant's assertion and its determination (1) The defendant's assertion that D, who is not the defendant, borrowed money from the plaintiff, and actually used and repaid money is also D.

The defendant only prepared a loan certificate at the request of the plaintiff and D.

(2) In a case where the authenticity of the judgment document is recognized, the existence of a legal act that forms the content of the declaration of intent as indicated in the document should be recognized, barring special circumstances where there are clear and acceptable grounds to the contrary.

(See Supreme Court Decisions 89Meu16505 delivered on March 23, 1990 and 2006Da30839 delivered on September 8, 2006, etc.) In light of the above legal principles, it is clear that the Defendant borrowed 10 million won and 5 million won from the Plaintiff, respectively, in light of the above legal principles, the health class, 1, and 2-1 (written loan) are a disposition document to the effect that the Defendant borrowed 10 million won and 5 million won from the Plaintiff. There is no dispute between the parties as to the establishment of the authenticity of each of the above loan certificates.

However, the obligation to return the loans indicated on the above loan certificates only with the descriptions of Nos. 1 through 17 (including each number).