1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 50,000,000 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate from May 6, 2012 to February 21, 2013; and (b).

1. The party's assertion and its determination

A. According to the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and the whole pleadings as to the cause of the claim, the defendant prepared a loan certificate with the purport of borrowing KRW 50,000,000 from the plaintiff on May 23, 2008 (hereinafter "the loan certificate of this case"). The representative director B of the plaintiff may recognize the fact that he remitted KRW 50,000 to the account under the name of the corporation C (hereinafter "C") designated by the defendant on the same day. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is liable to pay to the plaintiff 50,000,000 and delay damages.

B. As to the judgment on the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant did not have borrowed money from the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff among the construction works performed by C, transferred KRW 50,000,000, respectively, to C in order to receive the portion of the set-up construction work, and the instant loan certificate was written to the effect that the Plaintiff would first make payment for the construction work in receipt of payment from C.

However, barring any special circumstance where the authenticity of a disposal document is acknowledged, it shall be objectively interpreted that the parties expressed their intent in accordance with the content of the language stated in the disposal document, barring any special circumstance. In particular, in a case where the interpretation differently from the objective meaning of the language and text causes a serious impact on the legal relationship between the parties, it shall be more strictly construed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da77699, Feb. 24, 201). According to the evidence evidence No. 2, C may recognize the fact that: (a) on May 23, 2008, C has prepared a loan certificate stating that the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 100,000,000, including KRW 50,000 remitted by the Plaintiff from the Defendant; (b) in light of this, it is difficult to believe that D’s testimony consistent with the Defendant’s assertion is difficult to establish, and otherwise, a disposal document that is a disposal document recognized as a genuine document.