1. The Defendant’s KRW 141,766,063 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from April 21, 2016 to June 14, 2019.

1. In full view of the purport of Gap evidence No. 2 and the entire arguments as to the cause of the claim, the defendant prepared and executed a cash custody certificate (hereinafter “the cash custody certificate of this case”) to the effect that the defendant had regularly received KRW 150 million from March 30, 2015 to the plaintiff on and after the due date set as of May 31, 2015 (hereinafter “the part where the defendant prepared the cash custody certificate of this case”) (the part where the defendant was the person who was written on his own pen).

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 145 million (the Plaintiff was appropriated for principal) less the remainder of KRW 5 million (the Plaintiff was appropriated for principal) and damages for delay from June 1, 2015, which is the following day after the due date.

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. The defendant's defense of revocation of fraud 1) The defendant asserts that the defendant's claim is dismissed on the ground of deception, since the defendant, while borrowing KRW 70 million from the plaintiff and then making a cash custody certificate of KRW 150,000,000,000 should be teared if he/she has paid the money later, he/she shall not be accepted.

Rather, it is difficult for the Defendant to make and pay the cash custody certificate exceeding two times the actual loan amount in the last time, with the belief that he would tear the cash payment. ② The Defendant entered his account number as well as D’s account number in the cash custody certificate of this case (the Defendant recognized this in the relevant case, and the appraisal result also is the same). The Plaintiff remitted KRW 70 million to the Defendant’s account, KRW 80 million to D’s account, and KRW 150 million to D’s account. ③ At the time of investigation into the relevant case, the Defendant stated that he was aware of the fact that the cash custody certificate of this case was one million to its own money and KRW D’s money.