1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the amount ordered to be paid below is revoked.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Defendant D (one person E) and net B had a de facto marital relationship from before this year in 2011.

B. On April 201, Defendant D asked F, a relative of the deceased B, to lend money due to the lack of the deceased B’s hospital expenses and living expenses.

Accordingly, F asked the Plaintiff, a party who has already been engaged in monetary transactions, to "if an open time exists, and money is urgently needed, it shall be lent to the Plaintiff."

Accordingly, the Plaintiff gave F 10,000,000 won to F, and F sent it to Defendant D.

C. On June 11, 2014, Defendant D prepared a loan certificate (hereinafter “the instant loan certificate”) with the following contents, and the F sent it to the Plaintiff.

A loan shall be borrowed from the Plaintiff who resides in Ansan-si as of June 11, 2014 on a daily loan certificate (10,000,000) and shall be charged with all civil and criminal responsibilities when the loan is not made until April 11, 2015.

The first borrower on June 11, 2014: B I guarantor: JE Hah in Ansan-si.

D. The deceased died on September 3, 2015 while the instant lawsuit was pending.

Defendant C, the mother of the deceased B, solely inherited the deceased B, and took over the instant lawsuit against the deceased B in the first instance trial.

[Based on the recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1 (this case's loan certificate, the defendants asserted that there was no fact that the loan certificate of this case was prepared, but as examined below, defendant D's name and resident number at the network B at the bottom of the above loan certificate, defendant D's provisional name and resident number, resident number and address are recognized, so the above loan certificate's authenticity is recognized), 2, 4, and 5 evidence, witness testimony at the court of first instance, witness testimony at the court of first instance, and the court's request for written appraisal of L, the whole purport of the arguments is as follows.

2. Determination

A. The Defendants, in determining the authenticity of the instant loan certificate, have written to F a loan certificate stating that the creditor is not the Plaintiff, but the creditor, but the said certificate.