1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion has a claim for a loan of five million won against the Defendant’s mother C and D, the Defendant’s mother.

On September 2, 2007, the Defendant promised on November 30, 2007 to pay the Plaintiff KRW 75 million with respect to the above loan obligations by November 30, 2007.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay 75 million won and damages for delay to the plaintiff.

2. As evidence of the judgment, there are the defendant's employment certificates (Evidence A2) issued on September 11, 2007, and the defendant's employment certificates (Evidence A2) issued on April 13, 2007, stating that the defendant promised to pay 7.5 million won by November 30, 2007, and the defendant's name and seal impression affixed thereon (Evidence A1-1-2), the defendant's personal seal impression issued on September 11, 2007, and the defendant's employment certificates issued on April 13, 207.

A certificate of employment (certificate No. 2) is issued more than four months prior to the date on which the loan certificate (certificate No. 1-1) was prepared, and it is difficult to deem that the Defendant issued or delivered the certificate of personal seal impression (certificate No. 1-2) to the Plaintiff for the purpose that the Defendant would be liable to the Plaintiff for the obligations of C and D. The Defendant’s mother was issued as proxy, and the date of issuance is different from the date on which the loan certificate was prepared, and D stated that it was issued with the Plaintiff without the Defendant’s permission, and it is difficult to admit the Plaintiff’s assertion merely because it stated that

Next, with regard to the preparation process of the loan certificate, the Plaintiff stated that “the Plaintiff had the same as the Defendant D on the day on which the loan certificate was prepared, and two persons had entered the room, making it difficult to view that the loan certificate was prepared.” However, according to the result of appraiser E’s written appraisal, the Plaintiff stated that the other letters or signatures were D, and D also affixed the Defendant’s seal impression on the house without the Defendant’s permission.