1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Plaintiff regarding the amount of payment ordered below.

1. On June 17, 2008, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff lent KRW 80 million to the Defendant at an interest rate of 2.5% per month, and on June 16, 2010. The Defendant and the co-defendant B and D (hereinafter “co-defendants of the first instance trial”) agreed to jointly and severally pay the said money to the Plaintiff, and then written a loan certificate (Evidence A 15; hereinafter “the loan certificate of 2008”) with the Plaintiff. D prepared a new loan certificate (the loan certificate of 25% per annum on August 17, 2010; hereinafter “the loan certificate of 2010”) with the maturity of repayment as of December 30, 2010, and issued it to the Plaintiff, and the previous loan certificate was discarded.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff interest or delay damages calculated by the rate of 25% per annum, which is the agreement rate from October 7, 2010 to the date of full payment, starting from October 7, 2010, which began to delay the payment of interest with the loan of KRW 80 million (hereinafter “instant loan”).

2. Determination

A. The admissibility of each documentary loan (Evidence No. 1 and 15 of the evidence) is presumed to be genuine when the signature, seal, or seal affixed by the principal or his/her agent is affixed (Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Act). In cases where the originator of a private document admits that the signature, seal, or seal affixed to the private document was affixed on his/her own, the authenticity of the entire document is presumed to be established unless there are other special circumstances, such as the reversal of such presumption with counter-proof (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da11406, Apr. 11, 2003). First, with respect to the documentary loan (Evidence No. 15 of the above documentary loan) in 2008, the defendant asserts to the effect that he/she denies his/her signature, seal, or seal affixed to the above documentary loan. Thus, since there is no evidence to prove that the authenticity of the document should be established, the plaintiff cannot be used as evidence to support the plaintiff's assertion of the above loan.

Next, with respect to the borrowed evidence (Evidence A 1) in 2010, D by the Defendant’s agent at the first instance court, at the date of pleading in the first instance court.